LexMUKUL SAIKIA & ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] .16 S.C.R 236 A MUKUL SAIKIA & ORS. II. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6690 of 2008) B NOVEMBER 18, 2008 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] +-- Service Law: c Appointment/Recruitment/Selection - Filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised - Held: Is violative of Articles 14 and 16 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16. D Appointment - Claim of - Post of Project Officer advertised for direct recruitment quota - Post filled on merits ' out of the select list prepared - Name of appellants figuring " below the selected candidates in select list - Subsequently, E services of temporarily appointees regularized to the post of Project Officer against promotional quota, on basis of Cabinet Memorandum followed by Cabinet Decision and Notification relaxing Service Rules, as special case - Claim of appellant in the vacant/newly created post of CDPOs!PO, challenging only the Cabinet Memorandum - Held: Not maintainable - F Mere inclusion of appellants in select list of direct appointees does not confer any right on them to be appointed to any vacancy in regard to which selection was not held or against vacancies reserved for promotees - More so, Cabinet decision and Notification were in consonance and conformity G with the Service Order-Also, appellants had no locus standi to challenge regularisation of private respondents - Assam Social Welfare (Recruitment and Promotion) Service Order, "" -. 1994 - Clause 11. H 236 MUKUL SAIKIA & ORS. v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 237 _, The Assam Public Service Commission notified 27 A vacancies of Child Development Project Officer for direct recruitment. On 17.7.2000, a select list of 64 candidates . was prepared. The first 27 persons in the select list were appointed on merit. The names of the present appellants appeared below the 27 selected candidates in the list. B ~-• 18 CDPO's/Probation Officers-private respondents were temporarily appointe!I in terms of Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Function) Regulation, 1951. They could not succeed in c the selection process conducted by APSC. On 16.06.2000, the Cabinet Memorandum was circulated for regularizing the service of private respondents, in exceptional circumstances of the matter against the vacancies meant for promotees, in terms of Clause 11 of the of the Assam D ' Social Welfare (Recruitment and Promotion) Service ~ Order, 1994. On basis thereof, on 13.10.2000, Cabinet Decision was taken granting approval of regularization of service of the respondents. Thereafter, State Government issued Notification dated 16.11.2000 for regularising the services of private respondent. E Appellants filed writ petitions challenging the cabinet memorandum dated 16.06.2000 as also policy decision taken by the State to regularize the services of the private respondents. They prayed for appointment of the appellants in the vacant/newly created posts of CDPOs/ F P~ob~tion Officers. The Single Judge of the High Court d1sm1sse~ the writ pe~itions holding that no posts beyond ~7 advertised vacancies could be filled up from the select hst and the appellants had challenged only the Cabinet -- 1 Me~ora.nd~m and not the Cabinet decision and the G Not1~cat1on issued by the State Government whereby the serv1c~s of the private respondents came to be r~g~l~rized. Aggrieved, appellants filed writ appeals. The D1v1s1on Bench dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal. H 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R )-. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The select list prepared by APSC could be used to fill the notified vacancies and not future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement was only B for 27 posts, the State cannot appoint more than the number of posts advertised, even though APSC had -t ~" prepared a select list of 64 candidates. The selection list got exhausted when all the 27 posts were filled. Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed c candidates have no right to claim appointment to any vacancy in regard to which selection was not held. The fact that evidently and admittedly the names of the. appellants appeared in the selectlist below the persons who have. been appointed on merit against the said 27 . . . D vacancies, and as such they could not have been appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.