1984 (9) TMI 297 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unfettered right to appointment based on Subordinate Service Selection Board recommendation.
2. Compliance with Punjab Police Rules regarding direct recruitment and promotion quotas.
3. Allegations of mala fide actions by the State Government.
4. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
5. Validity of Board recommendations after the Board became functus officio.
6. Applicability of promissory estoppel against the State Government.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Unfettered Right to Appointment:
The main question was whether a person selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for direct appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police has an unfettered right to be appointed based on the Board's recommendation. The Court held that the selection by the Board is only a recommendation and the final authority for appointment lies with the Government. The Government may accept or decline the recommendation. The Constitution enjoins the Government to place its reasons for any departure from the recommendation before the Legislative Assembly, but this does not create an enforceable right for the appellants to be appointed.

2. Compliance with Punjab Police Rules:
The appellants argued that the State was bound to follow the Punjab Police Rules, specifically rule 12.3, which mandates that 25% of Assistant Sub-Inspector posts be filled by direct recruitment and 75% by promotion. The Court found that the State Government had adhered to this rule. Detailed information provided by the State revealed that promotions were made according to the quota, and the appellants' claim for a right to appointment based on this rule was unfounded.

3. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions:
The appellants alleged that the State Government's actions were mala fide, aiming to appoint its own favorites by making ad hoc appointments. The Court found no evidence to support these allegations. The learned Single Judge concluded that there were no vacancies in the direct recruitment quota and no ad hoc appointments in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors. Therefore, the claim of mala fides was not substantiated.

4. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The appellants contended that the Government's refusal to appoint them violated Articles 14 and 16, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. The Court held that the appellants' case was not identical to those who were appointed against the original 57 vacancies. Therefore, there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16.

5. Validity of Board Recommendations After Becoming Functus Officio:
The appellants argued that the recommendations made by the Board should remain effective even after the Board became functus officio. The Court did not find it necessary to delve into this issue in detail, as the primary question was whether the appellants had a right to appointment based on the Board's recommendation. Since the appellants had no such right, the issue of the Board's functus officio status was irrelevant.

6. Applicability of Promissory Estoppel:
The appellants invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, arguing that the State Government should be estopped from refusing their appointment after the Board's recommendation. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the notification issued by the Board was merely an invitation to apply for selection and did not constitute a promise of appointment. The appellants did not acquire any right to appointment merely by being recommended by the Board.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court concluding that the appellants had no enforceable right to appointment based on the Board's recommendation. The allegations of mala fides and violations of constitutional rights were not substantiated, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.