PANKJESHWAR SHARMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 03-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
PANKJESHWAR SHARMA AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No(s).3904-3905 of 2020)
DECEMBER 03, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Service Law – Irregular appointments – Negative equality –
2nd Respondent-Director General of Police invited applications for
the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Executive) in the State – The
2nd respondent under its own assumption published the select list
province wise – In the first round of litigation, the unsuccessful
candidates filed a writ petition – In compliance of the order of
Division Bench of the High Court, a fresh redrawn State-wise merit
list was notified which appointed 259 candidates and cancelled the
appointment of 47 candidates – In the second round of litigation,
the ousted candidates challenged the redrawn State-wise list – The
Division Bench of the High Court directed that those who did not
come within the merit zone in the redrawn merit list cannot be allowed
to continue – The said order was challenged in a SLP by the ousted
candidates – In the SLP, various interlocutory applications were
filed by a total of 22 candidates for their impleadment – The Supreme
Court without examining the inter se dispute of the parties and taking
note of the statement made by Advocate General of the State on its
face value accommodated all the 47 ousted candidates and 22
impleaded candidates on the post of Sub-Inspector – In the third
round of litigation, the candidates who were higher in the order of
merit qua those 22 candidates filed writ petition on premise that the
writ petitioner were denied their ligitimate right of fair consideration
being higher in the redrawn list vis-a-vis, the 22 candidates – The
Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and held
that the writ petitioners had a right of fair consideration in seeking
appointment based on their order of merit – The Division Bench of
the High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge and recorded
a finding that the Supreme Court had exercised its power u/Art. 142
of the Constitution – Before the Supreme Court, the appellants
198
   [2020] 13 S.C.R. 198
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
199
contended that the appointment of 22 candidates was not legally
sustainable and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution – Held: The
appointments are to be made strictly in the order of merit in terms of
the select list prepared by the competent authority and any
appointment in contravention is in violation of Art.14 of the
Constitution with a proviso that if any appointments are made
deviating from the merit drawn by the competent authority in
exceptional cases as being reflected in the instant case where there
was on-going litigation and subsequent selection was also held to
give quietus to the on-going litigation – The same cannot be
approved – The said appointments are irregular and cannot be held
to be illegal appointments – Further, if an appointment is made
illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be made the basis of further
appointment and erroneous decision cannot be permitted to
perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of
the public or a considerable section – Art.14 of the Constitution
does not envisage negative equality – In the instant case, 22
candidates have completed 12 years of service and have gained
rich experience in the field – In the given situation, the Supreme
Court is not inclined to disturb the appointment of 22 candidates –
The reasoning of the High Court that appointments were made by
the Supreme Court u/Art. 142 of the Constitution is not approved.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence
and has been consistently followed by this Court that the rules of
recruitment to various services under the State or to a class of
posts under the State, the State is bound to follow the same and
to have the selection of the candidates to be made as per the
scheme of recruitment rules and appointments shall be made
accordingly. At the same time, all the efforts shall be made for
strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the
recruitment rules. On the contrary, if any appointments are made
bypassing the recruitment procedure known to law, will resulted
in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court in
State of U.P. and Others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and Others and
later  in Arup Das and Others vs. State of Assam and Othe

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