Summary
The Court declined to disturb 22 longstanding Sub-Inspector appointments made after a State concession in earlier litigation and rejected other candidates’ demand for similar appointments. It corrected the High Court: the earlier order recorded a concession and was not an exercise of Article 142. The appointments remained irregular and contrary to the recruitment scheme, but their preservation on the particular equities did not create a right to negative equality.
Issues
- Whether appointments following the State’s concession were made under Article 142 and could support other candidates’ claims to parity.
- Whether the appointments should be disturbed after prolonged service, and whether the appellants established a right to appointment.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaRequired adherence to recruitment rules and merit while rejecting a claim to further appointments based on repetition of an irregular concession. (¶¶ 24, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaHeld that the prior Supreme Court order merely recorded the Advocate General’s concession and did not exercise the complete-justice power. (¶¶ 32, 41)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaRejected negative equality as a basis for compelling repetition of irregular appointments through writ relief. (¶¶ 24, 35, 36, 40)
Held
- Public appointments must follow the governing recruitment procedure and merit list. The 22 disputed appointments were irregular and not in conformity with the recruitment rules; preserving them in exceptional circumstances did not approve that departure as a general principle. (¶¶ 24, 30, 33, 40)
- The order dated 10 May 2007 recorded the State Advocate General’s concession. It was not an order under Article 142, and the High Court’s reasoning to that effect was incorrect. (¶¶ 8, 29, 32, 41)
- The appellants did not establish that they were the highest-ranked 22 remaining candidates entitled to the disputed vacancies. Candidates claiming the earlier qualifying marks also could not revive stale claims that ought to have been pursued in the earlier litigation. Article 14 does not require repetition of an erroneous or irregular appointment. (¶¶ 27, 31, 34, 35, 36)
- The Court declined to unsettle the 22 appointments because the incumbents had served for over 12 years, acquired experience, and been appointed following a bona fide concession intended to end prolonged litigation. Those equities did not give the appellants a right to further appointments. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
Result
Appeals dismissed without costs; the 22 appointments left undisturbed, while the High Court’s Article 142 reasoning was disapproved. Pending applications disposed of.