SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 21-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HRISHIKESH ROY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 414 : 2023 INSC 842
414
CASE DETAILS
SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10861 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
[HRISHIKESH ROY AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the appellant who qualiﬁ ed in the 
selection process for appointment to the higher judicial service of the State 
under the direct recruitment quota is entitled to be selected against a vacancy 
caused by resignation of one of the selected candidates.
Service law – Appointment to the higher judicial service of the 
State under the direct recruitment quota - Appellant qualiﬁ ed the 
selection process but was not appointed – Appointment sought against 
the vacancy which arose on resignation of one of the selected candidate 
– Appellant could not be appointed as he was at serial no. 14 of the merit 
and the posts available were only 13 – Justiﬁ cation:
Held: If one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives 
rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been ﬁ lled up without issuing a 
proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process – Appellant 
did not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed because he qualiﬁ ed 
in the selection process and the Rules do not oblige the State to ﬁ ll up all 
the vacancies advertised – Respondent-State have justiﬁ ed the appointments 
and have not acted in an arbitrary manner – They  acted fairly and logically 
without any malice against the appellant – Furthermore, selection was 
initiated in the year 2007 and 16 years have passed since then – It would 
be a travesty of justice to keep open the selection process for such a long 
time and to direct at this stage to make any appointment on the basis of a 
selection process initiated so far back – Thus, not proper to interfere with 
the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.
415
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47; Brij Mohan Lal 
(1) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 1; Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India
(2012) 6 SCC 502 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.10861 of 
2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.05.2010 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.16211 of 2009.
Appearances:
Rakesh Dahiya, Satyavan Kudalwal, Aditya Dahiya, Kapil Dahiya, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Monika Gusain, Raju Ramchandran, Ashok Mathur, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. We had heard Shri Rakesh Dahiya learned counsel for the 
appellant, as well as Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for 
the respondents.  Ms. (Dr.) Monika Gusain had appeared for the State of 
Haryana and was also heard.
2. The common judgment and order dated 18.05.2010 passed by 
the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court deciding 12 
writ petitions, more particularly, writ petition No.16211 of 2009 is under 
challenge in the present appeal.  The bunch of the above writ petitions 
were partially allowed but the appellant was not accorded any relief insofar 
as his appointment to the higher judicial service of the State under direct 
recruitment quota was concerned.  
SUDESH KUMAR GOYAL v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
3. Before adverting to the two legal issues which have been addressed 
by Shri Rakesh Dahiya in assailing the impugned judgment and order, we 
consider it appropriate to brieﬂ y narrate the facts leading to the ﬁ ling of the 
writ petition and now the appeal arising therefrom.
4. The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 18.05.2007 issued a 
notiﬁ cation for the selection/recruitment of 22 oﬃ  cers in the Haryana 
Superior Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar, out of which, 
14 were of general category, 5 of the scheduled caste and 3 of the backward 
class. The selection was to be made in accordance with the provisions of 
the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 within the 25 per cent 
quota for direct recruitment from the Bar.
5. The appellant was one of the candidates, who applied for the post 
along with the other candidates who preferred the connected writ petitions. 
The appellant, despite having successfully qualiﬁ ed the written examination 
and the interview and having secured the 14th position in the merit list, was 
not appointed.  
6. Pursuant to the above notiﬁ cation dated 18.05.2007, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.