The Supreme Court has ruled that an appointment can’t be made from a waiting list when a selected candidate resigns after joining.
A division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal rejected an appeal against the denial of appointment to the post of Additional District Judge in Haryana despite figuring in the final selection list underscoring the practical challenges of revisiting long-pending selection processes.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case revolves around the recruitment process for officers in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service through direct recruitment from the Bar. In 2007, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued a notification for the selection/recruitment of 22 officers in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar. Out of these 22 positions, 14 were reserved for candidates in the general category, 5 for scheduled caste candidates, and 3 for backward class candidates. Sudesh Kumar Goyal, the appellant, was one of the candidates who applied for one of these positions. He successfully passed the written examination and the interview, securing the 14th position in the merit list among general category candidates.
However, despite his high ranking, Sudesh Kumar Goyal was not appointed to one of the 14 general category positions.The appellant approached the High Court seeking his appointment against the 14th general category vacancy, alleging that leaving this position vacant was arbitrary and that he should have been appointed. Additionally, the appellant argued that he could have been adjusted against a vacancy created by the resignation of one of the selected candidates.
The respondents, on the other hand, explained that 5 general category positions were filled by absorbing Fast Track Court judges, leaving only 9 positions to be filled through the direct recruitment process. Later, 4 more general category positions became available, bringing the total to 13 positions. The High Court partially allowed some writ petitions but did not provide relief to Sudesh Kumar Goyal regarding his appointment to the higher judicial service. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India, where the appellant challenged the High Court's decision.
Contentions of the Appellant :
Sudesh Kumar Goyal contended that he should have been appointed to one of the 14 general category positions in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. He argued that his high ranking in the selection process made him eligible for appointment. The appellant alleged that leaving the 14th general category position vacant was arbitrary and violated the principles of fairness and transparency in the appointment process. Sudesh Kumar Goyal further contended that he could have been easily adjusted against a vacancy created by the resignation of one of the selected candidates, and this should have been considered.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents explained that 5 general category positions were filled by absorbing Fast Track Court judges who were working in Haryana. This absorption was done in accordance with the directions and policies outlined in the Brij Mohan Lal case. The respondents argued that initially, there were 14 general category positions available for direct recruitment. However, due to the absorption of Fast Track Court judges and the subsequent availability of 4 more general category positions, only a total of 13 vacancies remained for the direct recruitment process. The respondents maintained that their actions were not arbitrary, and they had acted in accordance with the rules and policies governing the appointment process. The respondents pointed out that the selection process had been ongoing for a significant period, and reopening it after so many years would be impractical.
Observation by the Court:
The court reiterated the legal principle that candidates selected through a recruitment process do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed to a position. This means that the mere selection does not guarantee appointment. While candidates do not have an automatic right to be appointed, the court emphasized that the decision not to fill vacancies must be bona fide and supported by appropriate reasons. The government or employer must act fairly and reasonably in its decision-making. The court acknowledged that 5 general category positions were filled by absorbing Fast Track Court judges, a process that was carried out following the directions and policies outlined in the Brij Mohan Lal case. This reduced the number of vacancies available for direct recruitment.
The appellant's argument that he could have been adjusted against a vacancy created by the resignation of one of the selected candidates was rejected. The court held that filling such a vacancy would require a fresh selection process. The court recognized that the selection process had been ongoing for a considerable period, spanning from 2007 to 2023. It considered it impractical to reopen the selection process after such a long time. The court found that the respondents (The State of Haryana & Others) had acted fairly and logically in their decision not to appoint the appellant, Sudesh Kumar Goyal. It concluded that their actions were not arbitrary and did not violate the principles of fairness.
Decision of the Court:
As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal. Sudesh Kumar Goyal's claim for appointment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service through direct recruitment was not granted by the court.
Case Name: Sudesh Kumar Goyal v. The State of Haryana & Ors.
Case No. : Civil Appeal No. 10861 of 2013
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Rakesh Dahiya, Raju Ramachandran
Advocate for the Respondent: Dr. Monika Gusain Senior councel
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 734 SC
Picture Source :