P. K. JAISWAL versus MS. DEBI MUKHERJEE AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-l 
-· 
Dr. P. K. JAISWAL 
V. 
Ms. DEBI MUKHERJEE AND ORS. 
JANUARY 7 , 1992 
[A.M. AHMADI AND S. C. AGRAWAL, JJ .] 
Service Law : Assistant Director General (Prevention of Food Adul-
teration}-Recruitment to-Requisition to Union Public Service Commis-
sion-Whether Government can withdraw before process of selection com-
mences. 
The Union Government sent a requisition to the Union Public 
Service Commission for selection of a candidate to the post of Assistant 
Director General (Prevention of Food Adulteration) in the Ministry of 
Health and Family Welfare which, under the extant rules, was to be 
filled in only by direct recruitment. However, before the Commission 
could advertise the post, the Government informed it not to proceed with 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the process of selection as it was examining to fill up the post by 
promotion of Assistant Secretary. But inspite of this, the commission 
advertised the post and the appellant was called for an interview where-
upon Respondent No. 1, an Assistant Secretary who was expecting her 
promotion to the. post on amendment of the rules, obtained an interim 
order from Central Administrative Tribunal, staying the process of E 
selection initiated by the Commission. The appellant, feeling affected by 
tht! said order, unsuccessfully moved the Tribunal for impleadment. 
Meanwhile two further layers above that of Assistant Secretary, though 
in higher pay-scales but with no separate designations, were created by 
an amendment of rules in pursuance of this Court's direction. The 
Tribunal disposed of the application directing to provide promotional 
avenues to Respondent No. 1 who, while functioning as Assistant Secre-
tary, had also occasionally held the charge of Assistant Director General. 
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the appeal by special leave to this 
Court. 
It was contended by the appellant that once the process for 
selection had started, it was not open to the Government as well as to the 
Tribunal to freeze the process and the Commission was entitled to 
complete the selection; and that the fact of creation of two layers by the 
amendment of the rules was wrongly overlooked by the Tribunal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
1 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 1 s. c. R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1 If the Government is at a given point of time consid-
'1-
B 
ering the question of amending the recruitment rules with a view to 
providing for promotion to a particular post, it can, before an advertise-
ment is issued by the Commission and the process of selection is under 
way, request the Commission to withbold the same till it decides on the 
question of amending the rules. [p. SE-Fl 
1.2 Whether to provide for promotion as a mode of appointment 
to the post in question is a matter of policy left to the Government to 
decide. [p. 6AB) 
1.3 Once the decision of the Government to withdraw the requi-
C 
sition was communicated to the Commission before it had set the process 
of selection in motion by issuing an advertisement, it was not open to the 
Commission to go ahead with the selection process as the Government 
could amend the recruitment rules retrospectively, if it so desired, with 
a view to providing for appointment by promotion. Such an exercise by 
the Commission would be one in futility, waste of public time and money 
D 
and hardship to candidates who seek appointment. [pp. SGH; 6A) 
The action of the Commission was somewhat hasty and unjustified. 
[p. 6B] 
2.1 If the Commission issues an advertisement at the behest of the 
E 
Government and pursuant thereto calls a candidate for interview, the 
candidate has a right to be considered for selection but not a right to be 
selected or to appointment to the post in question. The right to selection 
crystalises only after the candidate is called for interview pursuant to the 
advertisement. [p. S C-D] 
F 
G 
H 
N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission & 
Ors., [1990] 3 SCC 157 and Jatinder Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 
Ors., [1985)1 SCR 899, referred to. 
2.2 
In the instant case, the decision of the Government to with-
draw the requisition sent to the Commission before the issuance of the 
advertisement does not interfere with any vested right of selection 
because that stage bad yet not reached. [p. SF] 
2.3 Before the appellant acquired a right to be considered for 
selection the Government had already intimated that it was examining 
the question of amending the recruitment rules 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.