2009 (1) TMI 907 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment for the post of Lower Primary/Upper Primary School Assistants - Kerala Public Service Commission ( the Commission ) prepared a rank list - Appellants name figured therein - appellant contended that as their names appeared in the rank list' and they being seniors to some of the original writ petitioners they should also be directed to be appointed. The legality and/or the validity of Government Order dated 15.1.2002, as noticed hereinbefore, was questioned, inter alia, on the premise that the actual vacancy position had been suppressed by the State. HELD THAT - The matter might have been different, had the learned single judge as also the Division Bench come to a conclusion that in fact there existed 125 vacancies wherefor requisition was sent to the Commissioner. The existence of actual number of vacancies being in dispute, it is difficult for us to opine as has been contended by the ld counsel that all such vacancies existed. Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the State conceded that 18 original writ petitioners may be appointed stating that they were the actual beneficiaries of the judgment. Such a stand on the part of the State was accepted. The Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the other contentions raised by the parties thereto. No factual foundation, therefore, has been laid before us for arriving at the conclusion that all the 125 vacancies existed. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. A person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. In Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India 1991 (4) TMI 444 - SUPREME COURT , a Constitution Bench of this Court held that the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. Furthermore, the rank list was valid for a period of three years. Its validity expired on 5.6.2000. Another Select List was published for the period from 16.9.2002 to 15.9.2005. Vacancies in terms of the said Select List have also been filled up. It is also well settled principle of law that delay defeats equity . Government Order was issued on 15.1.2002. Appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage. Therefore, we see no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Government Order dated 15.1.2002.
2. Reporting and classification of vacancies by the Deputy Director of Education.
3. Entitlement of appellants to appointment based on the rank list.
4. Effect of delay and laches on the appellants' claims.
5. Legal right to appointment from a select list.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Government Order dated 15.1.2002:
The legality of the Government Order dated 15.1.2002 was questioned on the premise that the actual vacancy position had been suppressed by the State. The learned single judge of the High Court found that the reporting of vacancies was incorrect and that 175 vacancies were not anticipated but actual vacancies that occurred before the expiry of the rank list. This finding was crucial as it established that the vacancies existed and should have been filled from the rank list.

2. Reporting and classification of vacancies by the Deputy Director of Education:
The Deputy Director of Education reported 125 vacancies on 3.6.2000 and an additional 50 vacancies on 5.6.2000 as anticipated vacancies. The High Court found that the 175 vacancies were actual and not anticipated. This misclassification prevented the Commission from advising candidates for these vacancies. The Division Bench of the High Court directed the State to report the vacancies correctly.

3. Entitlement of appellants to appointment based on the rank list:
The appellants contended that they should be appointed as their names appeared in the rank list, and they were similarly situated to the original writ petitioners who were granted appointments. The High Court, however, directed appointments only for the 18 original petitioners, not for the appellants who got themselves impleaded later. The Supreme Court held that merely being on the rank list does not confer a legal right to appointment unless there is discrimination or arbitrariness in filling the vacancies.

4. Effect of delay and laches on the appellants' claims:
The appellants did not file any writ petition challenging the Government Order dated 15.1.2002 immediately. They only got involved after the original writ petitions were allowed and the State appealed. The Supreme Court noted that delay defeats equity, and the appellants' delay in approaching the court was a significant factor. The Court held that relief could be denied on the grounds of delay and laches, even if the appellants were similarly situated to those who obtained the benefit of the judgment.

5. Legal right to appointment from a select list:
The Supreme Court reiterated that a person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed merely because their name appears in a select list. The State has the discretion to fill or not fill the vacancies unless there is discrimination or arbitrariness. The Court cited several precedents, including Pitta Naveen Kumar vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti, Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, and State of Haryana vs. Subash Chander Marwaha, to support this principle. The validity of the rank list had expired, and another select list had been published and exhausted, further weakening the appellants' claim.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellants had no legal right to appointment based on the expired rank list, especially considering the delay in their legal action and the absence of discrimination or arbitrariness by the State in filling the vacancies. The principle that delay defeats equity was a decisive factor in denying relief to the appellants.

← Previous Next →