2009 (1) TMI 853 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether it is not a case where the appellants had given a go-by to the physically ability test? Whether the procedure adopted for selection was illegal?

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.
2. Validity of appointments made from the select list.
3. Estoppel and preclusion of the appellant from challenging the selection process.
4. Consideration of new vacancies from the existing select list.
5. Equitable grounds for non-interference with the appointments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Selection Process:
The appellant challenged the selection process on the grounds that the physical ability test, which was a crucial component of the selection procedure, was conducted after the interview, contrary to the advertisement's stipulations. The court observed that the physical ability test was an essential part of the selection for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and should have been conducted prior to the interview. The Selection Committee's decision to change the order of the tests was deemed a serious error, as the merit list should have been prepared based on the written test, interview, and physical ability test.

2. Validity of Appointments Made from the Select List:
The appellant did not initially challenge the appointment of 169 candidates made on 4.7.2000. The court noted that the appellant was aware of his position in the select list and the change in the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee but did not raise any objections at that time. Therefore, the appellant's subsequent challenge to the appointment of 77 candidates on the grounds of procedural irregularity was not entertained. The court held that the appellant, having accepted the change in the selection procedure without demur, could not now contend that the procedure was illegal.

3. Estoppel and Preclusion of the Appellant:
The court held that the appellant was estopped and precluded from challenging the selection process as he had participated in it without raising any objections initially. The principle that candidates who participate in a selection process knowing the procedure cannot later question it was reiterated, citing precedents such as Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin.

4. Consideration of New Vacancies from the Existing Select List:
The court addressed the issue of filling new vacancies from the existing select list. It was noted that the life of the select list was two years, and the process of filling up posts started within one year of its preparation. The court acknowledged the emergent situation in Assam, which necessitated the filling of additional vacancies due to deteriorating law and order conditions. The court held that in such emergent situations, the state is entitled to take decisions that serve a greater public interest, provided there are no constitutional or statutory interdicts.

5. Equitable Grounds for Non-Interference with the Appointments:
The learned Single Judge had set aside the appointment of 54 candidates, stating that the selection process was discriminatory as not all candidates were judged by a uniform process. However, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the appointments, directing the filling of remaining vacancies through a fresh selection process. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, emphasized that equitable principles must not amount to judicial benevolence or acquiescence of established violations of fundamental rights and the rule of law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Division Bench's judgment that validated the appointments made from the select list and allowed the filling of remaining vacancies. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the advertised selection procedure but also recognized the appellant's estoppel from challenging the process after participating in it without objection. The court also acknowledged the state's discretion in filling vacancies under emergent situations, provided it is done within constitutional and statutory limits.

← Previous Next →