2016 (10) TMI 1362 - SC - Indian Laws

Direction issued to restrict the selection of Assistant Prosecuting Officers only to the number of posts that were advertised - HELD THAT - The Appellants participated in the selection which was initially for 38 posts which later increased to 74 posts. They could not be appointed due to the judgment of the High Court which directed the selection to be only for 38 posts. In view of there being no fault on the part of the Appellants, we examined whether we could exercise our judicial discretion to direct their appointments. We realise that any such direction given by us for their appointments would be contrary to the Rules. Judicial discretion can be exercised by a Court only when there are two or more possible lawful solutions. In any event, Courts cannot give any direction contrary to the Statute or Rules made thereunder in exercise of judicial discretion. The selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.09.2009 should be confined only to posts that were advertised, the additional posts that were created after the expiry of the recruitment year shall be filled up by issuance of an advertisement afresh. In view of the shortage of Assistant Prosecuting Officers in the State of Uttarakhand, we direct the authorities to expedite the process of selection. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of advertisement for Assistant Prosecuting Officers' posts.
2. Validity of filling up additional posts beyond advertised vacancies.
3. Compliance with recruitment rules and principles of service law.

Issue 1: Interpretation of advertisement for Assistant Prosecuting Officers' posts
The case involved a dispute arising from an advertisement by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for Assistant Prosecuting Officers' posts. The advertisement mentioned 38 posts but allowed for the State Government to vary the number of vacancies. A preliminary examination was conducted due to a large number of applicants, and the High Court directed that selection should be limited to the initially advertised 38 posts. The Appellants contested this decision, arguing that more than 38 posts were available at the time of advertisement, and the High Court erred in not considering the shortage of Assistant Prosecuting Officers in Uttarakhand.

Issue 2: Validity of filling up additional posts beyond advertised vacancies
The High Court relied on the Uttar Pradesh Prosecuting Officers Service Rules to determine that selection should only be for clear and anticipated vacancies, not future vacancies. It directed the filling of the advertised 38 posts and commencement of the process for additional 36 vacancies requisitioned later. The Appellants claimed that no additional posts were created within the recruitment year, and the Government could have included them in the selection list if created during that period. The Supreme Court cited precedent to emphasize that appointments beyond advertised vacancies should only be made in exceptional circumstances, such as due to death or retirement, and not for future vacancies.

Issue 3: Compliance with recruitment rules and principles of service law
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the Civil Appeals. It concluded that the selection should be limited to the posts advertised, and any additional posts created after the recruitment year must be filled through a fresh advertisement. Despite considering the Appellants' situation, the Court clarified that judicial discretion cannot override statutory rules and directed the authorities to expedite the selection process due to the shortage of Assistant Prosecuting Officers in Uttarakhand. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to recruitment rules and principles of service law in public employment matters.