LexSURINDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SURINDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ETC. AUGUST 27, 1997 B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] Service Law : Recmitment-f'rocess of-Excess appointments over and above the C vacancies advertised-Held, normally not pemiissible but a policy decision can be taken to make excess appointments in rare, and exceptional cir- cumstances and in emergent situation-However reasonableness of the policy decision is subject to judicial review-Administrative law-Judicial review. Wait listed candidates-Have no vested right to be appointed except D when a selected candidate does not join and the waiting list is still operative. E F Recmitment process-Waiting List-Scope and intent of-Explained. Practice and Procedure : Time barred SLP--Refusal to condone delay though leave to appeal grante~Whi/e considering batch of SLPs, leave granted in all cases but delay not condoned in two cases which were delayed by 673 and 756 days as there was no sufficient cause to condone delay-Rather the petitioners acted as opportunists in approaching Supreme Court-Constitution of India-Article 136. The State Government advertised 2461 vacancies of teachers on 19.8.1992. Between 19.8.1992 to 22.6.1994, when process of selection was over and postings were made, 7737 posts of various categories of teachers became vacant. State Government filled up these posts out of the can- G didates who had applied against the post advertised on 19.8.1992. This action of the State Government was challenged in a batch of writ petitions filed before the High Court. The High Court quashed the appointments of 7737 candidates and upheld the selection and posting of candidates up to the number of posts advertised by the State Government. Some of the H candidates filed SLP against the judgment of the High Court, which was 538 > SURINDERSINGHv. STATE 539 dismissed. State Government after the judgment of the High Court took A the decision that the candidates who were selected in order of merit and whose appointments had not been approved by the High Court might be appointed on ad hoc basis for 89 days and that this would be a stop gap arrangement and that the process of further recruitment might be restart- ed by inviting fresh applications through advertisement. This action of the B State Government was again challenged in various writ petitions. The High Court upheld the action of the State Government giving ad hoc appoint- ment till the candidates were selected on regular basis. The High Court, however, extended time for the purpose from time to time and fixed a date after which the ad hoc appointment of the candidates would terminate. C Hence the candidates whose ad hoc appointments had been extended from time to time till regular appointments were made in terms of various orders of the High Court, had preferred the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. It is an improper exercise of power to make appoint· ments over and above those advertised. It is only in rare and exceptional circumstances and in emergent situation that this rule can be deviated from. It should be clearly spelt out as to under what policy such a decision D has been taken. Exercise of such power has to be tested on the touchstone E of reasonableness. Before any advertisement is issued, it would, therefore, be incumbent upon the authorities to take into account the existing vacan- cies and anticipated vacancies. It is not as a matter of course that the authority can fill up more posts than advertised. [547-E-F) F 1.2. In the present case, no exceptional circumstance existed, nor was there any emergent situation for the State Government to deviate from the principle of limiting the number of appointment so advertised. The High Court was right in setting aside the appointments of teachers over and above those advertised. The State Government accepted the judgement of G the High Court and did not come in appeal. However, to get over the situation created because of the fact that more vacancies of teachers were noticed during the period of interview, the State Government appointed candidates more than the number of posts advertised on ad hoc basis and continued them as such till fresh process of selection was gone into. That process is on and in various writ petitions, the High Court has been issuing H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A directions from time to time extending the a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.