STATE OF BIHAR versus UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH & OTHERS

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 20-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S. C. R 866 
A 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v 
UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH & OTHERS 
Civil Appeal No.17 41 of 2009 
B 
MARCH 20, 2009 
(MARKANDEY KAT JU AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.) 
Service Law: 
Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of 
~ 
c Vacancies) Act. 1959: 
Large no. of appointments made on adhoc basis without 
complying with the relevant rules and procedure - Government 
passing termination orders -
High Court quashing the 
termination orders and directing reinstatement with 
D consequential benefits -
On appeal, Held: The initial 
appointments were made in gross violation of the doctrine of 
equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
and the provisions of the 1959 Act- Orders of the Single Judge 
and Division Bench of the High Court set aside - Constitution 
E 
of India, Articles 14, 16. 
This appeal by the State relates to large no. of adhoc 
appointments without complying with relevant rules and 
procedure and the High Court directing reinstatement of 
F 
such employees with consequential benefits. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 
mandates that every appointment to public posts or office 
should be made by open advertisement so as to enable 
G all eligible persons to compete for selection on merit. 
• 
Although, the Courts have carved out some exceptions 
to this rule, for example, compassionate appointment of 
the dependent of deceased employees, for the purpose 
H 
866 
.. 
STATE OF BIHAR V. 
867 
UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH & OTHERS 
of this case it is not necessary to elaborate that aspect. A 
[Para 13) [883-G-H; 884-A] 
E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (1974) 4 
SCC 3; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others 
(1994) 4 SCC 138; Union Public Service Commission v Girish 
Jayanti Lal Vaghela (2006) 2 SCC 482; State of Manipur and B 
others v Y Token Singh and others (2007) 5 SCC 65 and 
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and others 
v P Mary Manoranjani and another (2008) 2 sec 758 - relied 
on. 
2.1 For ensuring that equality of opportunity in 
matters relating to employment becomes a reality for all, 
Parliament enacted the Employment Exchanges 
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. Section 
c 
4 of that Act casts a duty on the employer in every 0 
establishment in public sector in the State or a part thereof 
to notify every vacancy to the employment exchange 
before filling up the same. [Para 15) [885-B] 
2.2 In terms of Section 4 of the 1959 Act, every public 
employer is duty bound to notify the vacancies to the E 
concerned employment exchange so as to enable it to 
sponsor the names of eligible candidates and also 
advertise the same in the newspapers having wider 
circulation, employment news bulletins, get announce-
ment made on radio and television and consider all eligible F 
candidates whose names may be forwarded by the 
concerned employment exchange and/or who may apply 
pursuant to the advertisement published in the news-
papers or announcements made on radio/television.[Para 
16] [887 -G-H; 888-A-B] 
Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, 
A.P v. K.8.N. Visweshwara Rao and others (1996) 6 SCC 216 
and Arun Kumar Nayak v Union of India and others (2006) 8 
sec 111 - relied on. 
G 
H 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Union of India and others v N Hargopal and others ( 1987) 
B 
c 
3 sec 308 - referred to. 
3. The hope and expectation of the framers of the 
Constitution that after independence every citizen will get 
equal opportunity in the matter of employment or 
appointment to any office under the State and members 
of civil services would remain committed to the 
Constitution and honestly serve the people of this country 
have been belied by what has actually happened in last 
four decades. The Public Service Commissions which 
have been given the status of Constitutional Authorities 
and which are supposed to be totally independent and 
impartial while discharging their function in terms of 
Article 320 have become victims of spoil system. In the 
beginning, people with the distinction in different fields 
D of administration and social life were appointed as 
Chairman and members of the Public Service 
Commissions but with the passage of time appointment 
to these high offices became personal prerogatives of the 
political head of the Government and men with 
E 
questionable background have been appointed to these 
coveted positions. Such appointee

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