STATE OF J & K AND ORS. versus SAT PAL

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 05-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 648 
STATE OF J & K AND ORS. 
v. 
SAT PAL 
(Civil Appeal Nos.938-939 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 5, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Appointment - Recruitment - Candidate in wait-list -
Claiming appointment, in view that candidate above him in 
the merit list did not join - His writ petition disposed of 
directing the appellant-State to examine the claim - State 
rejected the claim - Contempt petition - Disposed of holding 
0 
that the candidate deserved to be appointed and directing the 
State to consider the case and pass orders in accordance with 
the order of the Court - LPA by State - Dismissed as not 
maintainable - On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, the 
candidate deserved to be appointed to the post - The offer 
E of appointment would relate back to the permissible date 
contemplated under rules laying down conditions of service 
of the cadre - The candidate entitled to seniority immediately 
below those who were appointed from the same process of 
selection - He would be entitled to wages from the date of the 
order. 
F 
The respondent participated in the selection process 
for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, and figured 
in the final merit/select list of Scheduled Caste 
candidates. On coming to know that some scheduled 
G Caste candidates above him in the merit list had not 
joined inspite of having been offered appointment, he 
addressed a representation seeking appointment against 
an available vacancy. He specifically named a candidate 
'T', in the merit list, who did not join despite being offered 
H 
648 
STATE OF J & K AND ORS. v. SAT PAL 
649 
appointment. As the representation remained undecided, 
A 
the respondent filed writ petition before High Court. The 
appellant-State did not appear before the Court. High 
Court disposed of the petition and directed the 
appointing authority to examine the claim of the 
respondent. The appellants dismissed the claim of the 
B 
respondent taking the view that the vacancies cannot be 
filled at the belated stage; and that the appointment could 
not have been granted in accordance with the waiting list, 
as the same had outlived its validity. The respondent filed 
contempt petition against the order. High Court disposed c 
of the petition holding that the respondent deserved to 
be appointed and directed the appellant-State to consider 
the issue and pass orders in accordance with the 
judgment of the Court. Appellants filed LPA taking the 
plea that the directions in the nature recorded by High 
0 
Court was not permissible in exercise of contempt 
jurisdiction. Division Bench of High Court dismissed the 
appeal as not maintainable. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, 
it would be just and appropriate to direct the appellants 
E. 
to appoint the respondent against the post of Junior 
Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. Even though candidates who 
were higher in merit, were offered appointment to the post 
F 
of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, for which recruitment 
was held, some of such posts remained vacant on 
account of the fact that persons higher in merit to the 
respondent had declined to join, despite having been 
offered appointment. Atleast one such vacancy never 
came to be filled up. In such a situation, the claim of the 
G 
respondent whose name figured in the merit/select list, 
ought to have been offered appointment against the said 
post. The claim of the respondent could not have been 
repudiated. The offer of appointment would relate back 
H 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A to the permissible date contemplated under the rules 
laying down conditions of service of the cadre to which 
the respondent would be appointed. The respondent 
would be entitled to seniority immediately below those 
who were appointed from the same process of selection. 
B Since the respondent has not discharged his duties, he 
would be entitled to wages only with effect from the date 
of the instant order. [Paras 10 and 18) [656-G-H; 657-A-
C; 663-F-G] 
1.2. The reason for declining the claim of the 
C respondent for appointment out of the waiting list is 
unjustified. A waiting list would start to operate only after 
the posts for which the recruitment is conducted, have 
been completed. A waiting list would commence to 
operate, when offers of appointment have been issued to 
D those emerging on the top of the 

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