High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12842/2020disposed of

Aman Duddi v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission And ORS

2026-03-09Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar46 pages

#$ %"&'('#)*

+, , ,

- ./

0 )

1%%'

,,, "!'!'#)"2 3(, 24 ) 5! $$ 5"6"&!'#) #00'(('#) )% #!7"2( ,,, "(8#)%")!( ,

- ./ 92'(7 ) ,,, "!'!'#)"2 3(, 24 ) 5! $$ 5"6"&!'#) #00'(('#) )% #!7"2( ,,, "(8#)%")!( ,

- ./ 510""!

910 2 18!

,,, "!'!'#)"2 3(, 24 ) 5! $$ 5"6"&!'#) #00'(('#) )% #!7"2( ,,, "(8#)%")!(

, - ./ 2 (##) 57 20 ,,, "!'!'#)"2 3(, 24 ) 5! $$ 5"6"&!'#) #00'(('#) )% #!7"2( ,,, "(8#)%")!( .* :

; ., 5 5

!" !#$ % !# $ $ & '

' &'

& '

()** $ * +

, - .

/' & - .

. 0

% !# $ $

()** $ * &

0 )

!# % !#$ $ $ 5555555 5

, - ;/ 6

4'7

, 8

:' .8 ,/

, ' (

' ;

7 '

8 ' certiorari 7 :'

7 7

7 8

' '

2' <7 ;7

3' 1 .

7 ,/

;

* =/

7 ' ' 2' <7

) $( $@ 9'

:' 8 /

' - 7/

, 9'

6 ' $( $( $ $ 9' 6 - 7/ ' (*

8 ' ()

A $@ $( $ $

+/' 07

.+0B

0 ,7 =%3 ;7

3' 1

68 %

'/ 7 6 8

- 7/

' &'

3' 1 8 ,/

0 .8

.+0B 8

0 77 ,/

8 ,

,/ 5 "

B ' ', ''/ 7

- 7/

, 8 '/ '

; ,

3' 1 =/ ' ,7 7

'7 , C

7 ,/

, / 7 C 8 $* 8 8 7 8

8 '7 , 7'7 ' ', / ,7'

' '

' ' 3 7 4'7 ,/

.?,

) B ' ' ',

7 ' 6

'/ ,/ '7

C 8 $*

6 ,

' , ' '

8 8 8

, ' 8 '7

;

'/ '4'/ ' ,/ 7 7 6 mala fide

', ,/ C 8

8 / '

7 / ' ',

' ) $ $@ 9' D / / ,/ 7 7 ' "

(

' ;

B '

:'/ , 7 ' ,/

= ;

,/ 77

7 7 '' , ' 9 '

( Per contra

* $ $ ( ,/ 4

' E

/ , .

supra ' 2' <7

@ ' *) 7 1'7

$ $@

' 8,/ 8 $* 8' , 7 /

;

/ 7

,' 7

/ '/ ' ) $ $@ 9' D

/ ,'

, 9 8

77 $ $ $$(

$( $$# F'

' , '

, 8

$( $$#

' 8

8 "(iv) in paragraph 6, for clause (d), the following clause shall be substituted and shall be deemed to have been substituted with effect from 10th January, 2006, namely:"

(d) methods of recruitment and the principles to be followed in making appointments to the Group B, Group C and Group D posts under the State Government. The Commission shall devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection of posts

for which requisition is sent to it by a department or an office, as it may deem appropriate and the criteria for the selection of posts fixed earlier by the Board/Commission shall be deemed to have been fixed under this clause."

53 5

# .

7 '

'7 8

7 C 8

/ ()

8 - 7/ , (*

.8 8

? 6

4'/

,/ 7 8 $* 8

C ,

7 ' ,/

; , 87 :'

Whether, in a combined recruitment for appointment to multiple departments or services, the State is bound to allocate departments strictly in accordance with inter"se merit of the selected candidates?

Whether a method of allocation that permits candidates lower in merit to secure more desirable departments ahead of higher"

ranked candidates is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 5 ;

; ; 53 ..555 @ 6 ' ' , '

E ',

/ ' '

9 ' ' 6 ' ,

' 8 ,/ 7'

7/ '

', /

' / ' , ', '

' / , ', ,'

7 F' '

' / /

' :'

/ ' ,/

7/ . .

;;

.5 .

. #)(!'!1!'#) 6 #1)% !'#) #$ ."2'! ("% 5"6"&!'#) $ 6 '

8 :'

', / "

(

' ;

/ ,

/ '/

7 ', / F'

/ ' ,/

' ' / 7

, ;

! "# $ %& '

.?,

8 -

'/ ' *$@

' ;

' ', / '7

7 ' '

' "

(

' ; '7

, / / 6'7 4'7 .?,

' '

/ , / 8 ', /

' , 9 8 ' ,'

7/ ', ,/ 7

, ' , :'

/ ', ."2'!

.1(!

6(# #<"2)

66#& !'#) #$

"8 2!0")!( ; ,

7 9

' '

' 6

;

' 9

6 78

8 ,

7 7

' , 8

C 6' 7

' ,

8 9 / 7 ;

7 ' 9

' , 8 7

, )&")!'<'=')> ."2'!*

#2"

2')&'86"

#$ #08"!'!'<"

"&21'!0")!

7 / ,

;

8 ' 7

, 8

8 '

, / ,

' 77

/ / C

' ,'

' ,

' ' ' ,/ 6

' , ' C 8 ,4 /

' ,'

' ', 7/ "

' /

8 /

,' ' .8 / 7 '

' ' ', ' ' 6

/ 8

7 7/

' ' / 9 ' A 9

7 /

'7 8 '

) F' 7

', ' <

' :' 7 ' '

;#?"2 )@"% )%'% !"( ))#!

5!" 6

. 2&7 <"2 ."2'!#2'#1( )%'% !"( ( 87 8

' ,

7 8'

' 7

' 6 '

' / , '7 87 - / 3'#6 !'#) #$

2!'&6"

-A1 6'!4/ 6

, / ,'7 ', / /

8 8

' 7

/ 8' 4' "

-B/ 3'#6 !'#) #$

2!'&6"

-A1 6'!4 #$ 88#2!1)'!4/ ', /

' '7

/ 7'

' ( -&/

"$" !

#$ ."2'! ("% 5"6"&!'#)

9 ' ,

, ', / F'

8 /

' 8 ,

7 ' 8

1/7

' , / / , '7

1%'&' 6 "&#>)'!'#) #$ ."2'!2"$"2")&"

2')&'86"

# 6

' / '

, / 3' ,

' 7 6 7

8 /

' ,

F' 4' 8 8

7 '

, 8 ' ' , / :' ' , '

8 /

:' , ()%) *+), -./0#%& 1

/ 8 / ' , '

'/ 8 4' 8' '

' '7 4' 8 '

"2) 3 "# $$%& 1 - / #)("A1")&"( #$

'>>"% #2 . )'816 !"% 5"6"&!'#) 2#&"((

' / C ' 7/ '

:' 7 '/ '

' ,

/ 87 , ' '

G 6 7 /

/ 7 -B/

)(!'!1!'#) 6 #)("A1")&"( #$ #082#0'("% "&21'!0")!

' ' 8 ', / '7 , 8 ' '

, ' :' '

< ', ' ' 'G 1 C

' G 1 :'

/ ',

; 7

,/ @ 6

' / '

' / , ,'

8 7/

' ' ,/

' '/

'/ ,'

/ 8 ' ' ', / '

;55 $ 6

'/ 4'/

$" $ ) 87 ,/

' "1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (in CWP"16533" 2023) submits that after issuance of the advertisement, the selection process was carried out for appointment in various Departments, Boards and Corporations of the Government of Haryana. The petitioner participated in the selection process and after scrutiny of the documents, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Panchkula thereafter issued the following instructions on 25.10.2019 for online submission of department preferences:"

% .) )--)4, + /

-) 56

1. Click on "Fill Preferences for Post of junior Engineer" on hssc.gov.in.

2. Candidates shall use the same Login ID and Password as was used for downloading admit cards for the written examination for post of junior Engineer.

3. Candidate is advised to go through the name of the 12 number of departments as mentioned in the advertisement against which he has applied and the categories against

which he has applied, before starting to fill up the preference form to avoid any confusion.

4. Candidate shall be considered against the posts for which he applied in the respective application forms and against the category i.e. General/SC/BC" A/BC"B/EWS only, as mentioned by him in the respective application forms. As per the Government instructions, in case a candidate has filled up more than one profile application form for same post, then the candidate shall be considered against the category as specified in the latest submitted application form.

5. Candidate should select the box as per the preference which shall be numbered in the sequence of selection automatically.

6. The selection can be altered any number of time before final submission by deselecting and then again selecting the boxes.

7. The candidate shall be mandatorily required to give all the preferences in respect of the roll number and posts against which he has appeared.

8. After filling in all preferences, the candidate shall be required to press the button "Send OTP, an OTP shall be sent to the registered mobile number of the candidate. The candidate shall be required to enter OTP and click on verify OTP button". On verification of OTP the preference shall get freezed and candidate can take print of the same.

9. No change shall be allowed after the final submission of the selection format and the preferences submitted shall be considered final.

2. Thereafter, for the reasons best known to the respondent/Commission, it made a U"turn and adopted a different yardstick for the allocation of departments to the selected candidates. In the meeting of the respondent/Commission held on 22.10.2019, it was decided that candidates who have indicated preference for three or less departments will be considered first for allocation, irrespective of merit. The operative part of the said resolution, reads as follows:"

7 5 While checking the application data by HKCL, it has been observed that many candidates have applied for 3 or

less than three categories of posts. So, candidates who have applied for only three or less than three posts/categories shall be considered first for allocation/adjustment against their preferred department, Because the candidates who would be lower in merit & have filled preferences 3 which will lead to no allocation to these candidates. This will compromise the merit of the candidates as those further lower in merit but having applied for more number of categories would then have to be selected or the seats would remain vacant. The attempt should be to allocate departments to all candidates without compromising merit calling for preferences from candidates shall not give absolute right to candidates to claim appointment in preferred department only. It's just an attempt to allocate preferred choice as far as possible but shall not break the merit list/order and will also lead to filling up of all seats in order of merit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent/Commission has erred in changing the criteria after culmination of the selection process. This tailor"made criterion was intended to favour certain candidates who might have been asked to give less than three preferences in advance, clearly reflecting mala fide on the part of the respondent/Commission.

4. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in , "

(

'0& 88, wherein reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by a Full Bench in the case of , )"/ 9 ,)

. :.)!)4

#''0& to concluded that a candidate higher in merit must be accorded priority in allocation of the department, according to his preferences, over those who ranked below him. Thus, the respondent/Commission has acted in an arbitrary fashion, causing great prejudice to the petitioner in spite of him being higher in merit.

5. However, learned counsel for respondent/Commission could not explain the rationale behind the decision to prioritize

candidates on the basis of a particular number (i.e. three) of preferences indicated by them as opposed to merit, to the satisfaction of this Court.

6. Learned State counsel seeks a short accommodation to have complete instructions in the matter and file an appropriate affidavit of the responsible officer addressing the issues highlighted above, well before the next date of hearing.

7. The common citizens cherish opportunities of public employment as it guarantees a dignified life and financial security. Thus, the process of selection for such employment must remain completely transparent, fair, and beyond reproach. In that vein, the respondent/Commission, being a major recruitment agency for the State of Haryana is expected to employ an even higher standard of care in holding the examination, evaluation, declaration of results and enabling fair appointment. It is, therefore, crucial to ensure that the vice of arbitrariness does not infiltrate the well" respected domain of public employment, both to set the correct tone for other employers and to prevent undue harassment to the aspirants. If any distinction is to be drawn between selected candidates, it must rest on a clear intelligible differentia that bears a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such distinction. In the absence of these essential characteristics, this distinction would amount to nothing more than exploitative discrimination.

8. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 17.12.2025. The relevant affidavit be filed with the Registry before the next date of hearing.

9. To be taken up immediately after the Urgent List.

10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases."

; ''

, , ,/ 4

' E

/ , .

6 ' ,8 "6.

That it is pertinent to mention here that the & + //) ) ) ).

$# ) 2).

& + //) ) 4 )

.) -- .)

).-)4 + ))

-) .

)" ,./

;)

)--)4 ) +

+ / -) %2 / " .) )--+ +

4 -) / )-)4 2). )

2)-- < . )

-- = It is further pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has duly filled the preferences of the department and he has been allotted HVPNL, Haryana as per his preference. Further, it submitted that posts were allocated on the basis of software/algorithm which categorically picks up the candidates on the basis of merit, preferences selected and availability of posts. The relevant part of the said algorithm is reproduced as under:"

"-4 )/ 1.

Firstly System will check the candidates in order of merit, who have given the preferences<3 for post/category. 2.

System will check first post preference of the candidate and seek available vacancy in the first preferred post according to merit and availability of vacancies. 3.

If there is vacancy available, then the candidate will be allocated to the vacancy and removed from the list of candidates.

If there is vacancy of the first preferred post, then system will next check preferred post and repeat the process till the preferred post get exhausted.

The aforesaid process shall repeat till all the posts are filled.

Secondly, after allocating all the candidates who have filled preferences<3, system will check the candidates in order of merit, who have given the preferences>3 for post/category.

System will check first post preference of the candidate and seek available vacancy in the first preferred post according to merit and availability of vacancies. 8.

If there is vacancy available, then the candidate will be allocated to the vacancy and removed from the list of candidates.

+ 9.

If there is no vacancy of the first preferred post, then system will next check preferred post and repeat the process till the preferred post get exhausted.

10.

The aforesaid process shall repeat till all the posts are filled."

Hence, the above said criteria were followed in the present case. Further, it is worthwhile to mention here that the meritorious candidates who had applied less than 3 preferences were given precedence over those who had applied more than three preferences. 9

< ) / ) 2)- . .3)4 ++-).) <" !0# ) 2 <

.) ++-) -

. 4 ) + #) .) 2++-)

+ >. 4 )

. )

)

--.)> / 4) ) +

+ / # .) 22-< -2

)? )-- +

-"/" 4--.) This would have compromised the merit of the candidates as those, further lower in merit but having applied for more number of categories would then have to be selected or the seats would remain vacant. The attempt should be to allocate departments to all candidates without compromising merit. It was also mentioned in the resolution that the calling for preferences from candidates shall not give absolute right to candidates to claim appointment in preferred department only. It was just an attempt to allocate preferred choice as far as possible and also filling up of all seats in order of merit.. Hence, the petitioner was rightly allotted department on the basis of above mentioned criteria and there was no pick and choose policy.

Therefore, Keeping in view the above explained facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner was rightly allotted his preferred department on the basis of a just and fair criteria and there was no pick and choose policy. Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner deserve to be dismissed qua the Commission in the interest of justice."

E '7

' , , 87 "On 08.04.2024, a specific query was raised by this Court as to under what authority of law the precedence was granted on the basis of preferences.

The learned State counsel is directed to place on record the notification vide which the Haryana Staff Selection Commission was constituted and its mandate. Further, the statutory framework, if any, which empowers the Haryana Staff Selection Commission to embark upon the task of allotting the Departments after the declaration of results. It is a trite law that selection process commences with the issuance of an advertisement and the mandate of the selection commission ceases on declaration of the result."

* ; ''

77 8

>H ?

' $ $ $$( ' ,/ - .

/ 7 ,'

,/ ' "

''/

/ 8

8 :'

' 6 7

,/ /

'7 ,/

' * $ $ ( 8

"A perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 indicates that the candidates, who were shortlisted for scrutiny of documents, were directed to give their preferences of departments vide notice dated 25.10.2019, circulated on the website of the respondent"Commission. The candidates were also informed that giving preferences is mandatory and failure to provide the same will result in cancellation of their candidature. Further, the affidavit dated 13.01.2026 of Rajiv Sindhu, Under Secretary on behalf of respondent No.1"Commission reveals that in the meeting held on 22.10.2019, respondent No.1" Commission passed a resolution to give priority to those candidates, who have given three or less preferences for department allocation.

In view of the above, respondent No.1"Haryana Staff Selection Commission is directed to provide following information along with supporting document by way of affidavit of its Secretary:

(a) The agenda of the meeting of the respondent"Commission held on 22.10.2029 as well as the minutes of the said meeting. Additionally, indicating whether the decision taken therein was circulated to the candidates by publishing a notice on the website of the respondent"Commission. (b) The record pertaining to the preferences given by all the private respondents in all the abovementioned petitions,

respectively, in furtherance and compliance of the order dated 19.04.2023. Also, provide complete information regarding the number of preferences given by them, their position in the final merit list and the department allocated to them.

(c) The complete details i.e. number of preferences given and position in the final merit list, of the candidates, who have been allocated the following departments:"

(i) PWD (B&R), Haryana, (ii)Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Haryana, (iii) Town & Country Planning, Haryana.

The affidavit be filed with the Registry at least 03 days before the next date of hearing and an advance copy be provided to learned counsel for the petitioner(s).

Further the Secretary of Haryana Staff Selection Commission - respondent No.1 is also directed to remain personally present before this Court along the complete record of the selection process on the date fixed."

) ;

$@ $* $ (

- 7

/ .

' $ $@ ' 8,

/ &'

3 ""

3 *@ 7 )

$# /

/ / 8

.8 '

' ,8

"3. That in compliance of aforesaid order passed by this Hon'ble Court, the deponent is furnishing following information alongwith the supporting/ annexures:"

A. A meeting of Haryana Staff Selection Commission was held on 22.10.2019, which was presided by the then Chairman, HSSC, and the minutes of meeting were formulated in the resolution/proceeding of meeting dated 22.10.2019, are attached herewith as Annexure A"1. It is further submitted that as per the general practice of the respondent Commission a notice/instructions regarding filing up of preference(s) of departments was uploaded on 25.10.2019 on the website of the Commission, 2

--/ .

)

). ) )

@9 $2 +<-) 2 < )

//) ) A copy of notice dated 25.10.2019 annexed as Annexure A"2.

B. The record pertaining to the preferences given by all the private respondents in CWP No. 12842, 12870 & 12872"2020 (O & M), CWP No. 16533"2023 (O& M) is as under:" Number of Prefer"

ence Cate"

gory Allo"

cated Merit No.

as per final selection list Allocated Department Name CWP No.

Roll No.

Respondent Name Father Name Prefer"

ence 32, , 5, 30, 1, 29, 4, 12, 23, 16, 18, 14, 24, 20, 34 12870/ 12872/ 10191 25747 Kunal Chhillar Dharamvir Singh

PWD (B&R) Haryana Irrigation & W&R Department Haryana Panchkula Dinesh Kumar Samadhiya 25, , 18, 14, 16, 12, 12842/ 10191 37265 Prashant Samadhiya C. The complete details i.e. number of preferences given and position in final merit list, of the candidates, who have been allocated following departments i.e. PWD (B & R), Haryana, Irrigation and Water Resources Department. Haryana and Town & Country Planning has been given in A

6 annexed with this affidavit.

4. That it is humbly submitted that per the record available, the Commission proceeded to allocate departments to the selected candidates through the algorithm as per the details given in the

resolution dated 22.10.2019 as was prevalent at that time. However, as per the record, it cannot be ruled out that the departments have been allocated strictly in accordance with inter" se merit of the candidates as is evident from the challenges arose during the said process of allocation of departments as per the preferences given by the candidates.

5. That it is most respectfully brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the Commission presently allocates departments to the selected candidates strictly on the basis of their merit position and indicated preferences through a duly established systemic and automated process. Further submitted that no human intervention is involved in the said allocation process, thereby ensuring fairness, transparency, and adherence to the principles of merit in the selection procedure.

6. That it is further brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the pay scale for the post of Junior Engineer (J.E.) in all departments under the Government of Haryana is identical, and therefore, allocation of a particular department does not materially affect the pay fixation or seniority of the selected candidates.

7. That it is further submitted that the present affidavit is filed in compliance of order dated 13.02.2026 and the contents of short reply dated 21.03.2022 & affidavit dated 13.01.2026, filed on behalf of respondent commission shall be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit and the same are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity."

( 6

7 '

7 $ $@

, 8

' ;

'7/

7 ' /

3 ""

3 *@ 8' , 7

/ )

$# /

8 8

# ; , 7'

,/ '

, ' 6 ' ' ,' ,/ 7 7 7

C 8 $* ' 7

? 8, 0 4' 7

4'/ 7 7 /

/ 8 ' '7

8' ' ' !

' 9' *

,' /

$* 8

F 3 0 $@*($ "(@ # ' 8 =%3 1

/ -'

3 0 $@)!$! # )

%3 1 '7 ) ; ,7 8

/ 8

.+0B 6

'/ , ' 4' , '

' '

@ / '

supra

'7/

', ) $ $@ '

8,/

8 '7

8' 7

$ $@ 8 ' , /7 ; 7

' :'

/ ', /

F' 7

'7 8 / 7 7 7

;

$ $@ '/ '

8 97

' 7 4' , '

' 7 '

, F'

' '7 7

' '

7 *$ 6

/ 2' <7

:'/ / 9 / ,

', 7 ,'

C 8

' ;

87 '

;7 1

6 /

7 ' 7

7 , ,'

7' ,/ ' ', '

,/ .

7'/ ,

, :'

/ 8' ,

8' ' 6

/ ' , ,'

7 7/ / ' / 7

? 8

8 ' , ,4

' / / , / 6

' ,/

,/ 8

;

' ,

' 9

E ',

* 4'' 8' , , 4'7 ,/

F' = , .7

' , )"/ 9 ,)

. :.)!)4

#''0& 8 87

"36. This merit list is not the only list. Though the management has no say in the matter, the employee, i.e., the prospective Principal or the prospective Teacher has a say of his own. He can make a preference for a college.

37. In our opinion, the Director at the time of making intimation is to 3 )..-"2)4 #)

".)

/ -"# .) B /

) + ))

.) # +

)--) .-- ) )) 4) <" .) )/ -

38. How the Director is to allot the candidates to the different colleges on the basis of these two items and these two items only are, with respect, correctly laid down by the Division Bench in paragraph 9 in Alka Rani's case (supra) and we agree with that paragraph in toto.

39. In our opinion the Director does not use a discretionary power in making intimations under sub"section (3) of Section 13. %

+ ,)

. #"

2) ;--"-4).-/) ,)

. 2)--- < <- +

/ / .<

. <

4) )" .

". ).) /3 ) .-- --2

.// ) ))/) ./)4

) )4

40. The wording of sub"section (3) of Section 13 shows that Director's action is compulsorily prescribed by the said sub" section. Although the said sub"section does not refer to the merit list at all yet as laid down in paragraph 9 of Dr. Alka Rani's case (supra) the merit list must be considered by the Director and in this regard the Director cannot disregard sub"section (1) of Section 13 and the exercise performed under that sub"section. The exercise by the Director is performed thereafter and must be performed thereon."

* F' /7 ' , )"/ ? supra,

1 = , .7

' , "

(

'0&

"23. From the decision of the Full Bench, it is clear that

. .. 2 )44 /

)-) <

/3)4--/ .-- Thus, if we apply the ratio laid down in Alka Rani's case, affirmed in Dr. Vinay Kumar's case,

+ ))2- /

) .) +-.

)

)2- ) )4< ++) )

.-- + +

>.) 2) -2

)

))

+ .) .-- < )4-2

)

) +

-) .)

-2

)

) #) +

)

)) +-.

).-- 2).2 )4

))

# ) >

.-)/ .-- --

.) #-2

)

)#2- )C

* 6 8 , )" / ? supra

' ,

,/ 77 ' 87 7

' ' /

(

' ;

.8 ' ; C '

:' ' :'

' ,/ ,7

, 5 ; ;

. 3

;;

55 5;

** ;

' 7

' ,7' =

/ 8 77

9 ',

/ ,

9 ; '

8 ,

,'/ '

,/ ',7

7 ', '

8' , '/ / '

4' 8

7' 8' , /

, *"

A,'/ 8 7

' / 8 '/ '

, 7 6

8 9

,/ 7

,' ,

',4/ 8' 6 .?,

' &/ ," /

" %

)-) + )"%)# $8$%& ' :&"++ 9/)-7# $81%&

, ' "

' ;

' , 7' ,/

/ 6

, ' '

, '

' , '

/ 7

9 8 ,/

8 ' 4''

/ ,

4'7 ,/

8 2'7 = .?,

' 7 ")6+

) * +! )4 .) " () %)# $$%&

8 7 '7 2' - 0 / 87

"15. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty on public authority to act

fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the conspectus of fair dealing in case of 'legitimate expectation', the reasonable opportunities to make representation by the parties likely to be affected by any change of consistent past policy, come in. We, have not been shown any compelling reasons taken into consideration by the Central Government to make a departure from the existing policy of allotment with reference to seniority in Registration by introducing a new guideline. On the contrary, Mr. Jaitley the learned counsel has submitted that the DDA and/or Central Government do not intend to challenge the decision of the High Court and the impugned memorandum of January 20, 1990 has since been withdrawn.

We therefore feel that in the facts of the case it was only desirable that before introducing or implementing any change in the guideline for allotment, an opportunity to make representations against the proposed change in the guideline should have been given to the registered Group Housing Societies, if necessary, by way of a public notice."

*) F' 8 '7 :'

8 2'7 = .?,

@ ) /"#

' ,

7 '7 1 2' =

' 87

"19. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the

requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit."

*) 3 7

, 4'7 ,/

2'7 = .?,

' &/

3)&

# $$8$ 8 8 7 '7 2' - = 87

"14. A Bench of three Judges of this Court in :A.)

) 7 ) 2 2 &# $$'' ', had held thus:

"It is common knowledge that many candidates are unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidates are deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should

sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate Department or undertaking or establishment, should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news" bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If that procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates."

15. In view of this legal position, the necessary requirement should be that they should necessarily not only notify but also call the names from employment exchange; in addition they should give wide publicity in the media inviting applications from qualified persons for selection..."

*) * 6 ,7 4' ':' / , 8 "

(

' ;

7 ', / 6

' ' ' 8

' 7 '

' 7 :'

/ ', / 6

,/ 4'7 ,/

8 2'7 = .?,

' ! 2/"

9 !D<- ) E ).

3!)4 # 4-

$$ %& $ 8 7 '7 2' &

/ 87

"11....But the Chief Justice or any other Administrative Judge is not an absolute ruler. Nor he is a free wheeler. He must operate in the clean world of law, not in the neighbourhood of sordid atmosphere. He has a duty to ensure that in carrying out the administrative functions, he is actuated by same principles and values as those of the Court he is serving. He cannot depart from and indeed must remain committed to the constitutional ethos and traditions of his calling. We need hardly say that those who are expected to oversee the conduct of others, must necessarily maintain a higher stands of ethical and intellectual rectitude. The public expenses do not seem to be less exacting." *) "

;

/& ! "# $$ '

2'7 = .?,

' C

7 '

7 '7 2' &

/ 87

"5. ... The absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate of rule of law upon which our whole constitutional edifice is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion when conferred upon an executive authority must be confined within clearly defined limits. The Rules provide the guidance for exercise of the discretion in making appointment from out of selection lists which was prepared on the basis of the performance and position obtained at the selection. The appointing authority is to make appointment in the order of gradation, subject to any other relevant rules like, rotation or reservation, if any, or any other valid and binding rules or instructions having force of law. If the discretion is exercised without any principle or without any rule, it is a situation amounting to the antithesis of rule of law. Discretion

means sound discretion guided by law or governed by known principles of rules, not by whim or fancy or caprice of the authority."

*) )

4'7 ,/

2'7 = .?,

' &

,) ).?

) E4 #9) !F ) #, -)

# 1

8 7 '7 1 2' =

"6.

The aforesaid provision is in consonance with the legal principle of "Rule of Law" and they remind us of the famous words of the English jurist, Henry de Bracton " "The King is under no man but under God and the Law". No one is above law. The dictum " "Be you ever so high, the law is above you" is applicable to all, irrespective of his status, religion, caste, creed, sex or culture. The Constitution is the supreme law. All the institutions, be it legislature, executive or judiciary, being created under the Constitution, cannot ignore it. The exercise of powers by an authority cannot be unguided or unbridled as the Constitution prescribes the limitations for each and every authority and therefore, no one, howsoever high he may be, has a right to exercise the power beyond the purpose for which the same has been conferred on him.

Thus, the powers have to be exercised within the framework of the Constitution and legislative provisions, otherwise it would be an exercise of power in violation of the basic features of the Constitution i.e. Part III dealing with the fundamental rights which also prescribes the limitations.

7. Article 14 of the Constitution provides for equality of

opportunity. It forms the cornerstone of our Constitution. In %& - <"0& 9/)-7#%& 8 +

/ '

5E98 $, the doctrine of basic features has been explained by this Court as under: "The doctrine of basic structure contemplates that there are certain parts or aspects of the Constitution including Article 15, Article 21 read with Articles 14 and 19 which constitute the core values which if allowed to be abrogated would change completely the nature of the Constitution. Exclusion of fundamental rights would result in nullification of the basic structure doctrine, the object of which is to protect basic features of the Constitution as indicated by the synoptic view of the rights in Part III."

8. As Article 14 is an integral part of our system, each and every state action is to be tested on the touchstone of equality. Any appointment made in violation of mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is not only irregular but also illegal and cannot be sustained in view of the judgments rendered by this Court in , -),

-+/ ! ).-

:/+-"

() , -) /)) )#, -)?@ #%& $$ +

/ 8$5E9

$$ $1;

! "?@ ) )4?@

. .# %& $$ +

/ 5 E9 $$

8$; </ /?@ (?@ #%&

$$' +

/ '5E9 $$'' 8$; E %

-- # #(?@ (?@ #%& $$'

/ 1; ! )4 ?

) #%&' +

/ 1$$5E9' 8; 4 % ) ,

-+/ + )0?

"#' 8 '5E9' 1;

and " ?@ "9/ ?

#E9 $ $.

9. In :A.) +

) -3+/# ) ,) ).# 7 ) 2 2 &?@ # $$'' '5E9 $$'

$ ', a larger Bench of this Court reconsidered its earlier judgment in ()%)?@ 7! 4+-?@ #%&

$8 +

/ 85E9 $8 , wherein it had

been held that insistence of requisition through employment exchanges advances rather than restricts the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, due to the possibility of non sponsoring of names by the employment exchange, this Court held that any appointment even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting application is in violation of the said provisions of the Constitution and even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto, it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from open market as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Articles of the Constitution. The Court further observed:

"In addition, the appropriate department..should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice and employment news bulletins; and then consider the case of all candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be sub served. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates." (Emphasis added) (See also: 9 2 )?@ G)- ) )3 3 4 ?@ # $$ 9 5%& $$ +

/ 5E9

$$8$ $; and )

) ,) % + .

.- #)+ ?@ #$ 1 ).

10. In

/ ?@ ! "?@ #

8'5E9 1 , this Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court wherein 1600 appointments made in the Police Department without advertisement stood quashed though the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 did not provide for such a course. The High Court reached the conclusion that process of selection stood vitiated because there was no advertisement and due publicity for inviting applications from the eligible candidates at large.

11. In ()<-).

//) ) *) ) E")0-

4 -?@ #' 9' 5%&' +

5E9' 8, this Court held:

"........The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial, through a written examination

+ or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution...."

(Emphasis added)

12. The principles to be adopted in the matter of public appointments have been formulated by this Court in

+ 30# +- 7 / ?@ #8

'15E98

'$ as under:

"(1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/Government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment.

(3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation.

(4) Those who come by back"door should go through that door.

(5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules.

(6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy.

(7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show"cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection.

(8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside."

13. A similar view has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in

"# 3?@ (/ ) ?@ #%&' +

/ '5E9'1 1, observing that any appointment made in violation of the Statutory Rules as also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution would be a nullity. "Adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment". The Court further rejected the prayer that ad hoc appointees working for long be considered for regularisation as such a course only encourages the State to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on some at the cost of many waiting to compete. xxx xxx xxx 15.

Where any such appointments are made, they can be challenged in the court of law. The quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that office by judicial order. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the Judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointment to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right.

These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office who might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. For issuance of writ of quo warranto, the Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the person holding the post has no right to hold it.

)""

? ,* ) &? #%& $'

/ 1$ ;

)/ / ()%)?@ #%& $$ +

5E9 $$ 18;

&+ 9/)-7?

#%& +

/ 1 5E9 1; 9

) 9 + .) "0 H).)-

//) )

"* #! "? #%& +

5E9 ; )4

) ?@ #%&' +

/ 5E9'

$; ! ) 0- ?@ # 1 9'5%& +

5E9 $ $; and -:- . ).)" ++-"()-)"@) ,< ) ?@ # 1 '

5E9 1 ).

16.

Another important requirement of public appointment is that of transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others.

xxx xxx xxx 26.

In )/ *+?@ &/ "?

@ # 9''5%& +

/ 5E9

', this Court did not accept the contention that appointment could be made to Class"IV post in Subordinate Courts under the Civil Court Rules without advertisement in the newspapers inviting applications for the posts as that would lead to lack of transparency and violation of the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court terminated the services of such appointees who had worked even for 15 years observing that the Court otherwise "would be guilty of condoning a gross irregularity in their initial appointment."

*) ( /

8 2'7 = .?,

) 2 )4-# '' 7 '7 2'

6 '

87 , 9

"17. In *E) )4) ()%)#%& $'8 +

18, this Court held that absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of "Rule of Law" upon which rests our Constitutional system. This Court ruled that in a system governed by rule of law, any discretion conferred upon the executive authorities must be confined within clearly defined limits. This Court quoted with approval, the following observations of Douglas J. in () I

-).3# $

1( $5$'

02:

"Law has reached its finest moments when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered."

18. A similar sentiment was expressed by this Court in : &"++ 9/)-7 # $811 where this Court declared that Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a specie and the basic principle which informs both these Articles is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Equality, declared this Court, was antithetic to arbitrariness. The Court described equality and arbitrariness as sworn enemies, one belonging to the rule of law in a republic and the other to the whims and caprice of an absolute monarch. Resultantly if an act is found to be arbitrary, it is implicit that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law, hence violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter of public employment it is also violative of Article 16. This Court reiterated that Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and inequality of treatment.

19. Then came the decision of this Court in 3*) ()%)# $8 &' , where this Court held that the

principle of reasonableness both legally and philosophically is an essential element of equality and that non"arbitrariness pervades Article 14 with brooding omnipresence. This implies that wherever there is arbitrariness in State action whether, it be legislative or executive Article 14 would spring into action and strike the same down. This Court held, that the concept of reasonableness and non"arbitrariness pervades the constitutional scheme and is a golden thread, which runs through the entire Constitution.

20. In &/ " %

)-) + )" $8$ %& ', this Court relying upon the pronouncements of E.P Royappa and Maneka Gandhi (supra) once again declared that state action must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. This Court recognised that principles of reasonableness and rationality are legally as well as philosophically essential elements of equality and non"arbitrariness as projected by Article 14, whether it be authority of law or exercise of executive power without the making of a law. This Court held that State cannot act arbitrarily in the matter of entering into relationships be it contractual or otherwise with a third party and its action must conform to some standard or norm, which is in itself rational and non" discriminatory.

21. In , 73 ()%)# $ , this Court reviewed the earlier pronouncements and while affirming and explaining the same held that it must now be taken to be settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness and that any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality.

22. In ,2 3 ) 9

/<"# $$ &&& 1$ 5 $$ $, this Court had an occasion to examine whether Article 14 had any application to contractual matters. This court declared that every action of the state or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and actions that are not so informed can be questioned under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution." ;5 *( E

, /

' / ,

7 "

(

' ;

D '/ ' 7/ :'

8 87

'In combined selections, a single process is used to recruit for multiple departments, and the principle of merit must extend beyond merely preparing a merit list to governing departmental allocation. A higher"performing candidate earns a superior claim to preference, as merit must be both recognized and rewarded. Accordingly, higher"ranked candidates must be given priority in choosing departments; otherwise, the very purpose of a competitive examination stands defeated. Merit position, therefore, must be duly respected in service allocation. Any arbitrary deviation from merit would fall foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.'

*# F'

' ' 8 '9

:' , 9

' ',7

7 8' /

,' 8'

', *!

7 '7

' / ',7

' ,

' '

- .

'4 , /

' '

', /

' /

7/ ' , 6

8 4'7 ,/ F' = , .7

' , )" / ? supra 6

' ,

6 ' , ' 8

/ - .

' ,/ :'7 '

,/ 7

7 , "$ , 8 37/

' 8

, 9/ $*

/ "

; 8 77

' 8

6 7

"* / ,

'4 ,

- '4 ,

/ , 5

$@ $* $ ( vishnu

7D ID0

ID0