Summary
The Supreme Court declined to reopen the earlier High Court decision setting aside cancellation of 122 engineering appointments. Its prior order had reserved only limited liberty to revise the selection exercise, not a fresh challenge to the same judgment. Later expert opinions could not retrospectively supply the cancellation order’s missing foundation. After complying with the High Court decision, Jal Nigam remained free to issue a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law; merits were left open.
Issues
- Whether limited liberty granted in an earlier special-leave proceeding permitted a renewed challenge to the same judgment.
- Whether later expert reports could sustain the original cancellation.
- What scope remained for a fresh decision concerning the selection.
Held
- The earlier disposal reserved only limited liberty to approach the High Court about reworking the selection. No liberty was sought or granted to challenge the original judgment afresh, so a successive special-leave challenge to that judgment was impermissible. (¶¶ 10, 13)
- The original order lacked an exercise establishing whether tainted and untainted candidates could be separated. Later expert reports were not before the authority when it acted and did not cure that omission. The Court did not decide the efficacy of those opinions. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14)
- Where established, pervasive selection irregularities make segregation impossible, the law may permit cancellation without individual notices. That principle did not sustain this original order, which lacked the necessary foundation. (¶ 12)
- Jal Nigam had first to act on the High Court judgment quashing the earlier cancellation. It could thereafter pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law, considering prior inquiries and other relevant material, with the limited option of reworking the merit list and hearing affected candidates remaining available. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- No opinion was expressed on the merits of future action against these respondents or other appointees; all such questions were left open. Appeals and interlocutory applications were disposed of without costs. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeals and interlocutory applications disposed of without costs. High Court decisions left undisturbed; competent authority free to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law, with future-action merits open.