Summary
Where thirty-seven General Category posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge were advertised and the Governor approved only thirty-six of the thirty-seven candidates recommended by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (which permits conversion of a direct-recruit vacancy to promotion when 'selected direct recruits available for appointment' fall short) did not apply, because eligible candidates below the cut-off remained available; the candidate ranked thirty-eighth was entitled to be recommended and appointed.
Issues
- Whether, when one of the recommended direct-recruit candidates is not approved by the Governor/State Government, the resulting vacancy may be carried forward to the next recruitment and filled by promotion under Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975, or must be offered to the next candidate in the Merit List of the same selection.
- Whether the decision of the High Court's Selection and Appointment Committee on this question was open to interference given the High Court's control over subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution.
- Whether precedents holding that an employer is not bound to appoint the next candidate when a selected candidate does not join apply where the governing rule is framed in terms of candidates 'available for appointment'.
Provisions considered
- Rule 8(2) (and proviso); Rule 18(4), Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975Rule 8(2) is attracted only when the number of 'selected direct recruits available for appointment' is less than the number of direct-recruit vacancies. Since more than thirty-seven eligible candidates were available in the Merit List and the shortfall arose only because the Governor rejected one of the thirty-seven recommended names, the condition was not satisfied and the High Court was under no obligation, and had no warrant, to convert the post to promotion or carry it forward. The phrase 'direct recruits' in Rule 18(4) must be construed consistently with Rule 8(2). (¶¶ 7, 20, 21, 22, 28)
- Articles 233, 234, 235 and 236, Constitution of IndiaNoted as conferring on the High Court complete and effective control over judicial officers, so that the views of a Judges' Committee or Full Court deserve due weight; nevertheless the Court intervened because refusing to do so would perpetuate an unjust outcome. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- The decisions of a Selection and Appointment Committee of High Court Judges on judicial service recruitment are entitled to due consideration and weight, and judicial review of such assessments is confined to cases of real injustice; but where refusing to intervene would perpetuate an unjust outcome, the Court will interfere. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Rule 8(2) of the 1975 Rules operates only when the selected direct recruits 'available for appointment' are fewer than the advertised direct-recruit vacancies, for instance when only nine candidates figure in the Merit List against ten vacancies. It does not apply where the Merit List contains more eligible candidates than posts and one recommended candidate is not approved by the Governor; in that situation the next-ranked candidate from the same selection is entitled to be offered appointment. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- Decisions such as Vallampati Sathish Babu and Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad, holding that an employer need not offer an unfilled vacancy to the next candidate, rested on rules expressly barring waiting lists and mandating carry-forward; they do not aid a reading of Rule 8(2) that would do violence to its plain text. Appointing the next candidate here neither exceeds the advertised vacancies nor creates a continuing wait list. (¶¶ 24, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Division Bench judgment dated 22.09.2022 set aside. The High Court and State Government directed to issue an appointment letter to the appellant within two months, with seniority reckoned notionally as part of the 2016 selection but placed immediately below all persons appointed pursuant to the 2016 Advertisement (including the OBC candidate), without back wages or emoluments before actual joining; the appellant to be posted and to complete prescribed training.