9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of allowing 91 candidates to appear at the viva-voce test. 2. Violation of Rule 47(2) of the Gujarat High Court (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1992. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Allowing 91 Candidates to Appear at the Viva-Voce Test: The appellants contended that the High Court committed an illegality by allowing all 91 candidates to appear at the viva-voce test, arguing that the zone of consideration should have been confined to three times the number of vacancies, i.e., not more than 75 persons. The High Court had extended the zone of consideration beyond 75, including candidates against whom adverse remarks were made or departmental inquiries were pending. The learned Single Judge found this extension contrary to law, stating that the selection of candidates beyond the zone of consideration was illegal. However, the Division Bench held that the Resolution dated 20th March 1982, which confined the zone of consideration, was inapplicable to the High Court's administrative appointments. The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench, stating that the Resolution applied only to the Head of Departments and not to Section Officers. The High Court's rules under Article 229 of the Constitution took precedence over the State's executive instructions. 2. Violation of Rule 47(2) of the Gujarat High Court (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1992: The appellants argued that the selection process violated Rule 47(2), which required merit to be determined based on past performance, written test, and oral test. The learned Single Judge noted that no criteria were fixed for assessing past performance, thus vitiating the selection process. The Division Bench, however, opined that the selection committee had considered service records, and non-assignment of marks for past performance did not indicate arbitrariness. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellants' contention, emphasizing that past performance was a crucial component of merit assessment. The selection committee's failure to allocate marks for past performance violated Rule 47(2). The Court directed that the cases of the remaining assistants who had not been promoted be reconsidered afresh, taking into account their past performance alongside written and oral test results. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals to the extent of reconsidering the promotion of the remaining assistants, ensuring compliance with Rule 47(2) by including past performance in the merit assessment. The High Court was instructed to consider whether such promotions, if granted, should have retrospective effect. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to established rules and procedures in promotion processes.
|
