Summary
The Supreme Court restored interim protection against a Maharashtra resolution accommodating 636 additional Police Sub-Inspector candidates beyond the notified selection. The resolution was issued without consultation with the MPSC, and the Government had to justify any exceptional relaxation of recruitment ratios before the Tribunal. The reasons for vacating status quo were inadequate, and directing training in the challengers’ own petition was improper. The resolution was stayed pending a time-bound joint decision after notice to affected candidates.
Issues
- Whether the interim stay of the resolution accommodating additional candidates had properly been vacated while its legality remained before the Tribunal.
- What safeguards should govern the pending adjudication and participation of affected candidates.
Provisions considered
- Rules 4 and 5, Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995The prescribed recruitment ratio could be relaxed for service exigencies only with prior MPSC consultation. The Government had to establish exceptional circumstances justifying that course before the Tribunal. (¶¶ 3, 8, 13, 14)
- Articles 14 and 16(1), Constitution of IndiaThe Court emphasized that recruitment beyond notified vacancies affects equal opportunity and the promotional prospects of other eligible candidates. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- Article 320(3)(a), Constitution of IndiaThe consultation requirement concerning recruitment methods informed the Court’s assessment of the resolution issued without MPSC consultation. (¶ 13)
Held
- Failure of some applicants to qualify in the earlier examination did not justify denying interim protection where appointments of an additional block would prejudice their future promotion prospects. (¶ 16)
- The applications expressly challenged the resolution, and withdrawal of separate proceedings by other applicants did not supply a valid reason to vacate this stay. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- A direction to send the additional candidates for training should not have been made in the petition brought by persons challenging that very accommodation. (¶ 19)
- The resolution was stayed pending the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal was to notify all 636 affected candidates through the State, club the pending challenges and decide them together within six months of receiving the order. The underlying merits remained for that adjudication. (¶¶ 14, 20, 21)
Result
Appeal allowed; orders vacating interim protection and directing training set aside, the resolution stayed pending Tribunal proceedings, and joint adjudication with notice to affected candidates directed within six months.