State of
Bihar Vs. Kaushal Kishore Singh & Ors
[1997] INSC 424 (10 April 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R O R D E R Impleadment application is dismissed.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of a learned single Judge of
the Patna High Court made on February 17, 1986.
A few
admitted facts are sufficient for disposal of this appeal. Recruitment to the
Class III posts in several categories in the State of Bihar was advertised by the Bihar State
Selection Service Board. Large number of candidates applied for selection.
There were 1005 posts in all, initially 978 and subsequently 127 posts were
included. For 7 categories of posts, special educational qualification of
graduation with Commerce, Science, Economics and Mathematics has been
prescribed. For 3 categories of posts only general educational qualifications
have been prescribed, All are required to have graduation degree as a minimum
educational qualification. before selection of the candidates, the pay
structure of some of the posts underwent drastical change.
Some
of the posts carrying higher pay scale, prior to the advertisement, were lower
grades with lesser scale of pay while some of the posts due to Pay Commission
recommendations were increased. Be that as it may, when the selection was made
and appointments were sought to be made of the selected candidates as per the
affidavit filed in this regard, on a direction given on July 30, 1987, the
Government claimed that "the Board considered candidates for various posts
as per availability at the time and recommended candidates strictly on the
basis of pay scale, academic qualifications of job requirements. The High Court
proceeded on the premise that no merit list was prepared and the candidates who
had aptitude certain job or entitlement are required to be considered for
appointment. Options had not been called for. Therefore, the selection and
appointment of the candidates without preparing merit list and without calling
for the option is arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
The
question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in
law? When we asked the learned counsel for the appellant to place before us the
merit list substantiate the stand taken in the affidavit filed in that behalf,
the learned counsel is unable to place before us the merit list except the
publication in the newspaper that candidates were selected on the basis of the
merit. In view of the finding recorded by the High Court that no merit list was
prepared and in spite of the opportunity having been given, the Government
failed to substantiate that the merit list was in fact prepared, we find it
difficult to accept the averments made in the affidavit. Under these
circumstances, we proceed on the premise that the merit list has not been
prepared and the selection to be made on the basis of educational
qualification, required for the job and in some Departments on the basis of pay
scales available at that time. In this scenario, the question arises: whether
appointment of the candidates is valid in, law? When the Service Commission or
the Board selects the candidates, the normal criteria required of is to prepare
of the list of the candidates selected in the order of their merit and then
recommends to the Government for appointment to the post advertised for. In
that behalf, it is always upon to the executive to allot the selected
candidates in the particular categories of services in the order Of merit
prepared and recommended as per the procedure and application of poster and
reservation and on the basis thereof appointments be made to the respective
Departments.
Of
course, it would be subject to the fulfilment of the qualifications prescribed
for the post. Since the Government has not satisfied us as to have adopted this
rationale, the appointment of selected candidates by pick and choose is an
arbitrary exercise of the power Under these circumstances, the arbitrariness is
writ large.
Accordingly
the recommendation in respect of the allotment and appointment of selected
candidates is per se illegal. It is true that the High Court has pointed out
that options are to be called for and the selection is to be made on the basis
of the options given. We do not find that the criteria laid down by the High
court is correct in law.
Even
if options were called for and given, it is not mandatory for the option of
candidates is only a discretionary matter and the Government is not bound to
select the candidates on the basis thereof. Under these circumstances, the
candidates is who applied for, though opted for, have no acquired rights, much
less indefeasible and absolute right for selection or appointment to a
particular post. As stated earlier, the Government have to prescribe an
objective and rational method or manner of allotment of the candidates selected
to the Departments , depending upon their job necessity and requirement. Since
the objective and rational criteria was not followed, we decline to interfere
with the impugned order Passed by the High court .
The
Government is directed to act in the light of the law laid down in this order.
This direction would apply only to those cases where the appointments have not
become final and the pending matters would be disposed of in the light of this
direction.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly but without any order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
