Summary
The Court set aside a direction to reconsider a claimant for appointment as Deputy Collector while protecting the appointment of the candidate already occupying the disputed post under an earlier court order. There was no vacant post, and a subsequent Commission recommendation could not justify directing two appointments to a single post. The claimant’s intervening retirement from another service post also made implementation of the impugned direction impracticable.
Issues
- Whether a subsequent selection recommendation justified appointment against a post already filled pursuant to an earlier court order.
- What effect the claimant’s intervening superannuation had on implementation of the High Court direction.
Held
- The State had rejected the representation because the disputed post was occupied by the other candidate under the earlier judicial direction, no vacancy existed and a supernumerary post could not be created in the circumstances. A direction protecting that incumbent while providing appointment to the claimant against the same post could not stand. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 5, 6)
- Implementation of the High Court judgment had remained stayed. The claimant subsequently retired as Deputy Transport Commissioner on superannuation, providing an additional reason why the proposed Deputy Collector appointment could no longer be implemented. (¶¶ 3, 5, 7)
Result
State appeal allowed. The High Court judgment dated 16 July 2014 was quashed and set aside; no costs.