9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the State Government's decision to set a higher minimum mark (55%) for appointment than the prescribed minimum (45%) in the rules. 2. Whether the candidates who qualified with 45% marks had a legal right to be appointed to the vacancies advertised. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Legality of Setting Higher Minimum Marks The primary contention revolved around whether the State Government could set a higher threshold of 55% marks for appointments, despite the rules stipulating a minimum of 45%. The respondents argued that the State Government's decision to require 55% marks was arbitrary and contrary to the rules. However, the court concluded that the State Government's decision was valid. The court stated, "Rule 8 is a step in the preparation of a list of eligible candidates with minimum qualifications who may be considered for appointment." It further elucidated that the State Government, in the interest of maintaining high standards of judicial competence, could set a higher mark threshold for selection. The court emphasized that setting a higher score for selection is a matter of administrative policy and not arbitrary, especially since it aligned with the High Court's previous recommendation to the Punjab Government. Issue 2: Legal Right to Appointment The respondents claimed a legal right to be appointed since they had qualified with the necessary marks and there were 15 vacancies. The High Court initially agreed with this view, stating that qualified candidates had a legal right to be selected under Rule 10(ii) of Part C of the Rules. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, clarifying that the mere qualification and existence of vacancies did not confer a legal right to appointment. The court stated, "One fails to see how the existence of vacancies gives a legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment." It was highlighted that the advertisement for 15 vacancies did not guarantee appointments for the first 15 candidates in the list. The court underscored that the State Government had the discretion to decide the number of appointments and was not legally bound to appoint all qualified candidates. The court reiterated, "The true effect of rule 10 in Part C is that if and when the State Government propose to make appointments of Subordinate Judges, the State Government (i) shall not make such appointments by travelling outside the list and (ii) shall make the selection for appointments strictly in the order the candidates have been placed in the list published in the Government Gazette." Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. It concluded that the State Government's decision to set a higher minimum mark of 55% for selection was valid and within its administrative discretion. It also clarified that the qualified candidates did not have a legal right to be appointed merely because there were vacancies. The petition for mandamus was deemed misconceived as there was no statutory duty on the State Government to appoint all qualified candidates, nor did the candidates have a legal right to enforce such appointments. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
