LI Network
Published on: 23 September 2023 at 15:58 IST
The Supreme Court has ruled that when a candidate who has qualified in the selection process joins and subsequently resigns, the vacancy created must be filled through a fresh selection process and not by selecting from the previous merit list.
The court emphasized that an applicant does not gain an indefeasible right to appointment simply by qualifying in the selection process.
In a case related to direct recruitment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, the appellant had applied based on a 2007 notification of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which advertised 14 general category posts for direct recruitment.
It was contended that despite qualifying in the written test and interview and being among the top 14 general category candidates, the appellant was not appointed. The first 13 candidates were appointed in order of merit.
The appellant argued that while selection alone doesn’t grant an indefeasible right to appointment, the right for appointment cannot be defeated in an arbitrary manner.
The respondents explained that initially, 14 general category vacancies were advertised, out of which 5 seats were filled through the absorption of Fast Track Court judges. Subsequently, 20 fresh vacancies arose, and only 13 candidates could be appointed, as per the directions in Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India (2012) and Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India (2002).
The Supreme Court accepted the reasoning provided by the respondents, stating that they had not acted arbitrarily and had justified the appointments fairly and logically. Regarding the argument that a vacancy created by the resignation of one of the selected candidates could have been adjusted, the court held that such a vacancy necessitated a fresh selection process and could not be filled without issuing a proper advertisement.
Additionally, the court noted that the selection procedure had been initiated in 2007, and it would be a miscarriage of justice to keep it open for such a long time and make appointments based on a process initiated so far in the past.
Case Title: Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. The State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10861 of 2013
