Summary
The Supreme Court rejected the appointment claim of a candidate ranked fourteenth in Haryana’s higher judicial-service selection. The authorities adequately explained why only thirteen general-category posts remained available after lawful Fast Track Court absorptions and addition of fresh posts. Selection created no indefeasible appointment right. A later resignation after joining created a fresh vacancy requiring fresh recruitment, and the Court also declined to reopen the sixteen-year-old process.
Issues
- Whether appointment of only thirteen selected general-category candidates was arbitrary despite fourteen posts originally advertised.
- Whether a vacancy caused by resignation after joining could be filled from the old selection.
Held
- Selection does not itself confer an indefeasible appointment right, nor did the governing rules require filling every advertised post. Nevertheless, a decision not to appoint must be bona fide, reasoned and non-discriminatory, respecting comparative merit in appointments actually made. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Five original general-category posts were used for valid Fast Track Court absorptions, leaving nine, and four newly available general posts were added. All thirteen resulting posts were filled by candidates above the appellant. The absorption procedure and its approval were not specifically challenged, and the explanation disclosed no arbitrariness or malice. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Resignation by an appointed candidate after joining created a fresh vacancy, distinct from failure to fill the original selection vacancies. That vacancy required advertisement and a fresh selection rather than adjustment of this appellant from the old process. (¶ 18)
- Sixteen years had elapsed since initiation of recruitment. Keeping the process open to order an appointment at that stage would be unjust and furnished an additional reason to decline interference. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; refusal of the appellant’s appointment claim upheld.