Gujarat State Dy. XEN Assn. Vs. State of Gujarat [1994] INSC 303 (10 May 1994)
Sahai,
R.M. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (2) 591 JT 1994 (3) 559 1994 SCALE (2)866
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J.- Seniority and quota
violation between promotees and direct recruits, that too amongst engineers,
keeps on coming to this Court every now and then. But the dispute which has
come by way of this appeal, directed against the judgment and order of the
Gujarat High Court, is slightly different from the beaten path. Although the
issue primarily relates to construction of a circular issued by the State
Government on 4-4-1979 providing for that, "the waiting lists which are
prepared on the basis of the result of the competitive examination by the
Commission, such waiting lists shall remain in force till the date of result of
the subsequent examinations are declared", the real issue that arises is
if such waiting list could remain alive for 10 years and could furnish source
of recruitment. Equally important, rather of far-reaching consequence, is the
issue whether the High Court could issue a direction to 'appoint candidates
from the waiting list to future vacancies as the quota of direct recruits had
not been worked out by applying correct principles. To add to this is the claim
of those selected after lapse of 10 years, that they too should be granted
deemed date of appointment as was done by the High Court in earlier petition
filed by some of the candidates who had appeared in the exams held in 1980 and
1982 but had failed and on having succeeded from the High Court in 1984 were
given their placement from 1981 and 1983.
2.Service
is the Engineering Service of State of Gujarat.
In
1980, examinations were held for selection of Class I and Class 11 Engineers
under Executive Engineers (Civil) Gujarat Service of Engineers Class I
Recruitment Rules, 1979 (for short "the Recruitment Rules") framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules
empowered the Gujarat Public Service Commission (for short "the
Commission") to fix qualifying marks in any or all the subjects. In
exercise of this power the Commission decided to hold an examination which consisted
of 1100 marks (900 for written and 200 for viva voce). It appears that after
the examinations were held the Commission for the first time fixed a minimum
qualifying marks of 50%, (that is, 100 marks out of 200 of viva voce) for
selection. The results were declared in December 1981. One of such candidates Shri
Ashra who had appeared in the examinations, but had not been selected even
though he had secured good marks in the written examination and on aggregate
had secured higher marks than those who had been selected, approached the High
Court by way of Writ Petition No. 3820 of 1981 claiming that the fixing of
qualifying marks was arbitrary. Similar Writ Petition No. 5381 of 1983 was
filed by one Shri Patel after the result of the next examination held in 1982
was declared in 1983. Both the writ petitions were decided by a common order on
5-11-1984. Their claim was upheld, the
fixation of qualifying marks was struck down and the Commission was directed as
under:
"...
to consider the question of inclusion of the petitioners' names in the merit
lists on the basis of aggregate marks in the written as well as viva 595 voce
tests ignoring the concept of minimum qualifying marks for viva voce test. If
the petitioners are entitled to the inclusion of their names on merits on the
basis of aggregate marks, the merit lists shall accordingly be revised and
appropriate recommendations shall be made to the State Government. If the
petitioners are entitled to appointments to the posts in question on the basis
of inclusion of their names in the merit lists, such appointments shall be
given to them by the State Government. In such an event, they shall also be
given appropriate seniority in accordance with their ranking in the merit
lists. In other words, the petitioners shall be placed above those who rank
below them in the merit lists in the seniority list of the posts in question.
If necessary, they may be given deemed date of appointment without any monetary
benefit." This direction became final as the SLP filed against this order
was dismissed by this Court. Consequently, it was given effect to and the list
was redrawn. The effect of redrawing the list was that those candidates who had
filed the writ petition succeeded and were placed in the list of selected
candidates and were appointed as such. It further resulted in alteration of the
waiting list, For instance, the candidates in the waiting list at serial nos. 1
and 7 were pushed down to nos. 4 and 12 and some of the candidates who had
earlier been disqualified were placed higher in the revised waiting list.
However, those who had been appointed were not disturbed as the High Court
while deciding the writ petition had directed that the entire selection was not
being quashed as, "it would be equally improper to disturb selection of
those who had been selected and appointed on the basis of such merit list. In
our opinion, the ends of justice Would be met if the Commission is directed to
revise the merit lists in accordance with the directions given hereafter."
3.Thus one phase of litigation, initiated by those candidates who had secured
better marks in aggregate but had failed to secure qualifying marks, came to an
end. The second phase of litigation, with which this appeal is concerned and
the seed for which, too, was sowed in 1982, itself, immediately after
declaration of result of 1980 examination was initiated by those candidates who
had secured qualifying marks but could not secure sufficient marks to be placed
in the select list but had been placed in the waiting list. They filed Writ
Petition No. 4411 of 1982 claiming that the vacancies worked out for the
examination held in 1980 were not in accordance with quota rules. It was
claimed that since under the rule in operation till 1982 the vacancies of
direct recruits lapsed if no examinations were held a direction be issued to
the Government to work out the vacancies and appoint candidates from waiting
list of 1980. Similar relief was claimed by others in writ petitions filed
after declaration of result in 1983.
4.Before
these petitions could be decided, the appellant, an association of promotees,
approached the High Court in 1986 that they were apprehensive that the State
Government in garb of implementing the order passed in November 1984 may make
fresh appointments of direct recruits from the waiting list prepared in 1981
and 1983 which would be highly prejudicial to their interest, therefore, a
direction be issued to the State Government not to appoint any more direct
recruits from the waiting list as they were already in excess of their quota.
Some individual promotees also approached the High Court. All these petitions
were decided by a common order by the High Court in 1989. The operative 596
portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was affirmed by
the Division Bench against which this appeal has been filed, reads as under:
"In
the result, Special Civil Applications Nos. 4411 of 1982 and 1522 of 1989 are
allowed. The respondents are directed to operate and implement the revised
select list prepared by the Commission on the basis of the result of the
examination held in December 1980, by taking into account the aggregate marks
of written as well as viva voce tests between the period from 8-9-1981 to
21-9-1983 notwithstanding the fact that the result of the next examination was
declared on 21-9- 1983. Since in all there were 86 vacancies available for
appointment by direct selection and promotion to the posts of Executive
Engineers, GSE Class I in 1981-82, 21 appointments were required to be made by
direct selection against 15 which have been made in the Irrigation Department
and Roads and Building Department. Respondents are, therefore, directed to make
6 more appointments by direct selection from the revised list referred to above
on merits out of the vacancies available in the year 1981- 82. Petitioners who
do not get appointments, will be considered for vacancies arising in the year
1982-83 and allocable to direct recruits. For the purpose of applying the quota
rule in the year 1982-83, as in the case of the year 1981-82, the vacancies
would include newly created posts, vacancies existing on account of retirement,
promotion etc. and the vacancies arising on account of the officers sent on
deputation. The ratio to be applied for working out vacancies available to the
petitioners for appointment by direct selection would be as prescribed by Rule
3.
Under
Rule 3, this ratio was 1:3 up to 21-5- 1982 and 1:4 thereafter. If the
vacancies in the year 1982-83 are not sufficient to accommodate all the petitioners,
the remaining petitioners will be considered for appointment in the vacancies
allocable to direct recruits as aforesaid which arose between 1-4-1983 and 21-9-1983, the
date on which the result of the next examination was declared. Respondents are
further directed to take into consideration the claim of the petitioners of
Special Civil Application No. 1522 of 1989 that they belong to reserved
category while giving them appointment as aforesaid in the year 1981-82 or any
subsequent year. In other words, they shall be given appointments as per the
existing reservation policy. Petitioners shall be given appointments as
aforesaid from the date they are entitled to, without giving them any monetary
benefit for the period from the date they were entitled to the appointments to
the date they are actually appointed and if, necessary, petitioners may be
given deemed date of appointment.
Petitioners'
seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers (Civil) in GSE Class I shall
accordingly be adjusted. Respondents are directed to carry out the aforesaid
directions within six weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this
Court."
5.Are
these directions well-founded in law? Not one of them. The direction to operate
and implement the revised list prepared by the Commission, notwithstanding the
declaration of the result of examination of 1982, is based on erroneous
understanding of the earlier decision. The occasion for direction to revise the
list in that case arose as the High Court found that the very basis of
selection was arbitrary. But that ratio could not be extended to hold that the
waiting list, so redrawn, was alive even after 1983. Those petitions were not
concerned either with determination of quota or the life of a waiting list. The
principle laid down therein could not furnish basis for the claim that the 597
determination of quota was not proper. Nor could the High Court direct the
Government to appoint the direct recruits from the waiting list prepared in
1980 in the vacancy which according to the High Court should have been
available as that would amount to interfering with discretion of Government
which as a matter of policy may decide to fill lesser vacancies.
6.Even
then we would examine if the exercise undertaken by the High Court of determining
the quota and direction to Government to appoint is wellfounded in law. Before
deciding these issues it may be pointed out that the direction to work out
vacancies and appoint candidates from the waiting list, the High Court did not
find that the selection held in 1980 was for lesser number of vacancies than
was available for direct recruits. Rather it held that vacancies of 1979-80 and
1981-82 could not be taken into account as even if there were any they had
lapsed under proviso to Rule 3. It is not disputed that selections were held,
both, in 1980 and 1982 for certain number of vacancies and the candidates who
were found suitable were placed in the select list. And those who had got
lesser marks were placed in the waiting list. Therefore, the vacancies
advertised for which selections were held had been filled in accordance with
the Recruitment Rules on recommendations made by the Commission. No further
exercise was necessary.
But
the High Court proceeded to determine the quota after taking into consideration
(a) vacancies in permanent posts (b) vacancies in temporary posts whether duly
created or existing (c) vacancies on account of retirement and (d) vacancies on
account of the officers sent on deputation to other Departments and
Corporations for reasonably long period for the purpose of applying quota
rules. It did not agree with the State Government that apart from (a) and (b)
the vacancies arising out of (c) and (d) could not be taken into account for
determining the quota. Consequently, it issued directions to the State
Government to appoint persons from the waiting list and if the quota of direct
recruits in one year exhausted then they were to be accommodated in vacancies
thus calculated for the next year. One of the reasons for this direction was the
enforcement of the proviso to Rule 3 which provided that if the vacancies of
direct recruits were not filled in one year they shall not be carried forward
and shall lapse. The High Court held that this rule was likely to cause
hardship to the direct recruits a,,.. was apparent from the list filed by the
State Government which clearly demonstrated that large number of promotees were
appointed in excess of their quota.
7.In
A.K. Subraman v. Union of India' it was held that quota rule was to be enforced
with reference to all posts, permanent and temporary. But it is very doubtful
if the quota could be worked out taking into account the number of vacancies
arising out of deputations. In this appeal it is not necessary to enter into
this wider aspect as even if the principle evolved by the High Court for
determining quota is accepted as correct the question still is if it could
issue directions to the State Government to appoint candidates from the waiting
list of 1980 examination on such vacancies which arose between 1980 and 1983.
The view in law does not appear to be sound. Rule 3, and more particularly its
proviso, as it existed in 1980 read as under:
"3.
The appointment by direct selection and promotion shall be made in the ratio of
1:3 (i.e. one by direct selection and three by promotion).
1
(1975) 1 SCC 319: 1975 SCC (L&S) 36: AIR 1975 SC 483 598 Provided that if
in any year recruitment by direct selection is not made according to the
prescribed ratio the shortfall of direct recruits shall lapse and shall not be
carried forward in the subsequent year." The main part of the rule was
amended in 1982 and the ratio of 1 to 3 was substituted and it was fixed at 1
to 4. The proviso was deleted. The operation of the proviso was undoubtedly
prejudicial to direct recruits. If selections were not held or vacancies were
not worked out properly and the quota lapsed, then it obviously went to promotee.
The learned counsel for direct recruits submitted that if the State Government
was left to itself then even for extraneous reasons it may not have held
selection resulting in reducing the number of direct recruits in service. No
such claim was made before the High Court. However, even assuming that it may happen
the question as to how to safeguard against such possible misuse is entirely
different from the consideration if the State Government could be directed to
work out the vacancies and make appointments from the waiting list. On a
literal reading of the proviso the quota lapses if the selection by examination
for direct recruits is not held in any year. Since admittedly the next
examination for selection of direct recruits was held in 1982 the quota of
direct recruits, if any, under the rules for 1981-82 lapsed.
But
such construction of the proviso would be highly inequitable. It shall be dealt
with later. However, even if on some reasoning the view of the High Court would
have been upheld for 1981-82 it could not be invoked for vacancies arising
after the result of 1982 examination were declared for the simple reason that
the proviso to Rule 3 had been deleted in 1982 and the vacancies of direct
recruits could not lapse and consequently were to be carried forward.
8.Coming
to the next issue, the first question is what is a waiting list?; can it be
treated as a source of recruitment from which candidates may be drawn as and
when necessary?; and lastly how long can it operate? These are some important
questions which do arise as a result of direction issued by the High Court. A
waiting list prepared in service matters by the competent authority is a list
of eligible and qualified candidates who in order of merit are placed below the
last selected candidate. How it should operate and what is its nature may be
governed by the rules.
Usually
it is linked with the selection or examination for which it is prepared. For
instance, if an examination is held say for selecting 10 candidates for 1990
and the competent authority prepares a waiting list then it is in respect of
those 10 seats only for which selection or competition was held. Reason for it
is that whenever selection is held, except where it is for single post, it is
normally held by taking into account not only the number of vacancies existing
on the date when advertisement is issued or applications are invited but even
those which are likely to arise in future within one year or so due to
retirement etc. It is more so where selections are held regularly by the
Commission. Such lists are prepared either under the rules or even otherwise
mainly to ensure that the working in the office does not suffer if the selected
candidates do not join for one or the other reason or the next selection or
examination is not held soon. A candidate in the waiting list in the order of
merit has a right to claim that he may be appointed if one or the other
selected candidate does not join. But once the selected candidates join and no
vacancy arises due to resignation etc. or for any other reason within the
period the list is to operate under the rules or within reasonable period where
no specific period is provided then candidate from the waiting list has no
right to claim 599 appointment to any future vacancy which may arise unless the
selection was held for it. He has no vested right except to the limited extent,
indicated above, or when the appointing authority acts arbitrarily and makes
appointment from the waiting list by picking and choosing for extraneous
reasons.
9.A
waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not
furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that
if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the
waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if
there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy
decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view
taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out
properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be
appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving
those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available
in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite
stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort
to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up
candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional
discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of
power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting
list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh
candidates either from the open or even from service.
10.How
a waiting list is to operate in the State is clear from a circular issued by
the State Government on 27-12- 1983. The relevant portion of the circular is
extracted below:
"According
to the instructions issued by the department often and often, waiting list
prepared by the Gujarat Public Service Commission over and above the number of
posts requisitioned shall remain in force up to 2 years or under circumstances
up to the declaration of the result of next examination.
The
basic purpose of the preparation of waiting list is when sufficient candidates
are not available from the merit list prepared for requisition of particular
year, shortfall can be met with from waiting list or for making recruitment
during emergent condition, waiting list cannot be considered as merit list for
that year or of next year, similarly waiting list cannot be used as a
substitute to the requisition of next year. Further as the requisition
statement for the particular year is sent for the post allocable to direct
recruitment for that year as per provision in relevant rules, naturally the
requirement of subsequent year cannot be incorporated.
Considering
on the above facts it is not fair to stop the regular procedure of recruitment
or not to give new advertisement for the reason that merit list or waiting list
prepared as part of merit list of previous year is in force." Although the
circular was issued in 1983 but it only attempted to clarify what was the
implied purpose of a waiting list. Even without it, the operation of a waiting
list should be confined to the vacancies notified for that examination and not
for any vacancy arising in future unless a policy decision is taken by the
Government to that effect.
Appointment
in future vacancies from waiting list prepared by the Commission should be
exception rather than the rule.
It has
many ramifications. In any case, the High Court should not have assumed upon
itself the role of appointing authority unless it found that the Government was
600 acting arbitrarily. No rule has been shown that selection of direct recruits
was to take place every year. In absence of such rule, the proviso could not
apply
However,
its validity was not challenged either in the High Court or in this so Court.
It has, therefore, to be construed so as not to defeat the objective of its enactment.
For its working reasonably it has to be understood that once recruitment by
direct selection has been made in any year then the quota of direct recruits
till then should be deemed to have been exhausted and if an vacancy could not
be filled for any reason then it should be deemed to have lapsed and could not
be carried forward. Read in this manner the quota of direct recruits till 1980
got exhausted. But it could not affect quota of 1981-82 and 1982-83, therefore,
no appointments on the quota of direct recruits for 1981-82 and 1982-83 could
be made from the waiting list of 1980. The entire exercise undertaken by the
High Court of finding out number of vacancies was thus an exercise in futility.
Further, what the High Court has done is that it has not worked out the
vacancies only till the examinations were held but it went further to hold that
since the result of the next examination was declared in 1983 the vacancies for
direct recruits arising between the date the result of 1980 examination was declared
and before the result of 1982 was declared could be filled from the waiting
list of 1980. In other words, the waiting list instead of being a list for
filling the vacancy in exigencies arising out of non-joining of a candidate for
the year for which the examination was held became a source of recruitment for
the vacancies which were to arise between 1980 and 1983. And if the vacancies
which arose in 1981-82 and 1982-83 are filled by this method then the
examination of 1982 was held for which vacancy as normally the Government sends
the requisition for the vacancies existing on the date of sending the
requisition.
We can
appreciate the anxiety of the High Court that if examinations are not held
regularly as has happened between 1983 to 1993 it may result in depriving fresh
candidates from being selected and their post may be filled by promotees. But
such concern could not result in nullifying entire procedure. The better course
would have been to direct the Government to work out the vacancies and fill them
by holding an examination, if necessary, in addition to the examination already
held. But the procedure adopted by the High Court, of giving such vacancies to
candidates who were in the waiting list does not appear to be correct.
There
was no contingency nor the State Government had taken any decision to fill the
vacancies from the waiting list as it was not possible for it to hold the
examination nor any emergent situation had arisen except the claim of some of
the candidates from the waiting list that they should be given appointment for
vacancies which arose between 1980 and 1983 and between 1983 and 1993. Such
claim of the appellants who had appeared in a particular examination and were
placed in the waiting list could not be sustained. In fact, the action of the
State Government in not sending the requisition every year or at the most every
second year to the Commission for holding an examination for vacancies which
had arisen or were likely to arise was liable to be commented upon and the
State Government should have been directed to take care in future that the
examinations are held regularly. But in no case the vacancies arising in future
should have been offered to the candidates in the waiting list of the earlier
year. The direction of the High Court, therefore, to appoint the candidates
from the waiting list in the vacancies which, according 601 to its calculation,
arose between the years 19810 to 1983 and between 1983 to 1993 cannot be
upheld.
11.The
entire appointment of direct recruits, therefore, from the waiting list was not
proper. But these persons have been appointed and are working now at least for
five years. It would, therefore, be unjust and harsh to quash their selection
at this stage. Therefore, while refraining from quashing the appointment made
in pursuance of the direction issued by the High Court, we are of the opinion
that the waiting list for one year cannot furnish source of recruitment for
future years, except in very exceptional cases. It is, however, necessary to
add that non-holding of examination at the instance of the Government could not
result in reducing the quota of direct recruits to be worked out on the
principle for determination of such vacancies.
Therefore,
if vacancies had collected between 1983 and 1993 due to interim orders passed
by the courts, and they have not been taken into account when the examination
for 1993 was held then it would be expedient to direct the Government to work
out the same immediately and send the requisition to the Commission for holding
selection for if the next examination is going to be held within one year from
today.
We may
clarify that it is nobody's case that the quota rule has broken. Therefore the
direction is being issued to protect the quota of direct recruits during 1983 to
1993 in the peculiar facts of the present case.
12.Taking
up the application of direct recruits, who have been appointed in pursuance of
the decision of the High Court, for deemed date of appointment and grant of
seniority at the same place as those appointed in 1980 or in 1983 on the basis
of selection held in 1980 and 1982, suffice it to say that even the appointment
of these candidates was not in accordance with law yet we have not set it aside
on equitable considerations. Further, a candidate appointed in pursuance of a
direction issued by the High Court in 1989 in respect of a vacancy which might
be deemed to have existed in 1981-82 cannot get seniority over those candidates
who were appointed either from the same batch on the basis of better aggregate
marks or over those candidates who were selected in the subsequent examination.
No parallel could be drawn from Ashra case+. He was found to have been
illegally excluded from the select list as a result of operation of a letter
issued by the Commission which was found to be arbitrary. He was, therefore,
entitled to be placed in the select list. He was, therefore, entitled to deemed
date of appointment. That cannot apply to those who were in the waiting list. A
candidate from the waiting list appointed subsequently cannot claim appointment
from a back date. Even otherwise appointment of a candidate operates from the
date he is appointed and not from the date those from the select list are
appointed. Same principle applies even amongst inter se appointees from the
waiting list. For instance, if A, B and C are appointed from the waiting list
as and when vacancy arises say in 1990, 1991 and 1992, respectively, then their
seniority shall be counted from the date of their appointment and B cannot
claim it from 1990 or 1991 (sic) nor C can claim either from 1991 or 1990. The
claim of the direct recruits is, therefore, rejected and it is directed that
they shall be given seniority from the date of their appointment and not from
any back date.
+ Writ
Petition No. 3820 of 198 1, decided on 5-11-1984 (Guj HC) 602 13.In the result
this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the High Court isset aside
subject to following directions:
(1)
Any candidate who has been appointed in pursuance of the order passed by the
High Court shall be deemed to be in service from the date he has joined and his
seniority shall be reckoned from that date only.
(2) No
fresh appointment shall be made.
(3) If
vacancies for direct recruits have accrued between 1983 to 1993 and they have
not been taken into account when the examination for 1993 was held then they
shall form part of the requisition to be sent by the Government to the
Commission either for the next examination if it is going to be held within one
year or a fresh examination may be held in the alternative for such vacancies
only within a period of one year from today.
This
direction is being issued in the peculiar facts of this case.
14.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
Back