2003 (7) TMI 698 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of appointment process based on merit lists - Requisition made by the State of U.P. Requisition for 40 vacancies - HELD THAT - Admittedly, appellant - Ashwani Kumar was not so included and the position is worse in the case of other appellant - Brij Nath Srivastava. It is submitted that there is no logic for such fixation. Here again the plea is without substance. If the employer fixes a cut off position, same is not to be lightly tinkered with unless it is total y irrational or tainted with malafides. Employer in its wisdom may consider a particular range of selection to be appropriate. It has not been shown as to how the fixation is irrational, much less malafide. Additionally, it is noticed that the unfilled posts were carried forward to the next year and have been filled up on the basis of selection made by the Commission. Accepting the prayer of the appellants would mean that the position which has assumec a sort of finality for more than a decade would be unsettled. Persons who have been appointed on the basis of the subsequent examination has to give way to appellant - Ashwani Kumar Singh. Though they had been impleaded but did not appear, it does not mean that something which is not permissiole in law has to be done. It would not be fair to disturb the prevailing position. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant - Ashwani Kumar Singh that he has already been promoted as Accounts Officer, and the only question left is of his seniority over those who were subsequently appointed. This plea is without any substance. Since he has been promoted later on, in the absence of any statutory prescription, person who has been appointed to the higher post earlier would be logically senior to him. The High Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant - Ashwani Kumar Singh. So far as the other appellant - Brij Nath Srivastava is a concerned, his claim is based on almost identical premises as that of Ashwani Kumar Singh. His name was far below in the select list. Therefore, he does not have a better case than that of appellant - Ashwani Kumar Singh whose stand has been negatived. Though he claims to be candidate belonging to the backward class, the posts have been filled up and his name finds place much below the zone of selected candidates. Both the appeals deserve dismissal, which we direct.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the appointment process based on merit lists, filling of vacancies, legality of appointments, and the application of previous legal precedents.

Appointment Process and Vacancies:
The appellants participated in the Combined State Services Examination of 1987, expressing preferences for specific posts. The examination was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission based on a requisition for 40 vacancies. The Accounts service had designated posts of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer and Assistant Accounts Officer. Results were declared in 1989, with subsequent appointments made based on recommendations and court orders. A representation was made in 1990 regarding vacancies due to selected candidates not joining.

Legal Precedents and Applicability:
The appellants filed writ petitions in 1992, arguing that vacancies should have been filled from the waiting list, which was contested by the State Government and the Commission. Reference was made to the legal precedent set by the court in Jai Narain Ram v. State of U.P., highlighting differing interpretations of the law and factual circumstances.

Interpretation of Legal Precedents:
The judgment emphasized the need for a contextual understanding of legal precedents and cautioned against blindly applying previous decisions without considering the specific facts of each case. It discussed the limitations of interpreting court judgments as statutory provisions and stressed the importance of flexibility in legal interpretations based on individual case details.

Appointment Criteria and Seniority:
A policy decision was noted regarding the appointment of candidates based on their merit list rankings. The judgment upheld the employer's discretion in setting cut-off positions for appointments unless shown to be irrational or malicious. The finality of appointments made over a decade was highlighted, and the dismissal of the appellants' claims was justified based on the established selection process and seniority considerations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, stating that the appellants' claims lacked substance as their positions in the select list did not warrant appointment. The judgment upheld the legality of appointments made based on the established process and rejected the plea to disturb the existing seniority order. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.