STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. v. SANJA Y KUMAR PATHAK AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 951

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. v. SANJA Y KUMAR PATHAK AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

) f STATE OF M. P. AND ORS. v. SANJAY KUMAR PATHAK AND ORS. OCTOBER 10, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND H. S. BEDI, . JJ. ] •( Service Law-Recruitment of teachers-Under a project-By amendment of recruitment rules-Selection of some candidates stopped-By interim order ofCourt while considering validity ofthe amendment-Appointment ofselected candidates after the amendment was upheld-Candidates whose selection was stopped, claiming appointment-Denied by State-Administrative Tribunal directing completion of selection process-High Court directing their appointment on sympathetic considerations-On appeal, held: No appointment couldbe made by the State in view ofincomplete selection process-Action ofthe State being bonafide could not be challenged- Ordinarily a Writ Court should not act on the basis ofsympathy alone, in absence ofany legal right-Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, I 973-r. I0 (3).

Government oflndia launched a Project which was required to be implemented within Eighth Plan period. In terms thereofteachers were required to be appointed. With a view to expedite the implementation in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Rule 10(3) of Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non- Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 was amended for recruitment of Assistant Teachers. Selection Committees were constituted for recruitment in every district for selection to be made districtwise. Appointments were to be made in phases. Administrative Tribunal in a case wherein validity ofs. 10(3) was challenged, by an interim order stayed the appointments of selected candidates made in terms of the Scheme. Preparation of Select List for Damoh District was stopped in view of the interim order. No tabulation was done in respect of the interviews of the candidates. Tribunal subsequently declared the amendment illegal.

However the order ofTribunal was stayed by this court. Pursuant thereto State Government offered appointments in favour of the selected candidates except those who had been interviewed by the Selection Committee of Damoh District. Ultimately the selection process was upheld by this court. The candidates who have been interviewed filed application before the Tribunal for issuance of appointment letter to them. Tribunal directed to complete the aborted T process of selection. State's Writ Petition thereagainst was dismissed by High Court in view ofthe peculiarity ofthe case without going into the merit. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. No appointment could be made by the State in absence of the Select List. The State could not substitute itself for the Selection Committee. It is not disputed that the tabulation ofthe marks obtained by the candidates was not finalized.

For the purpose ofselection, the marks allotted to each ofthe candidates should be known to the members ofthe Selection Committee. Members ofthe Selection Committee before preparing the Select List were entitled to undergo a consultative process so as to enable them to arrive at a consensus in regard to the candidates who should be appointed. As the tabulation process itselfwas not completed, the question of preparing any Select List also did not arise. p [Paras 10and19] [959-C-D; 963-A] 2. Recruitment to the posts of Assistant Teacher is governed by statutory rules. Rule 10 ofMadhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 was amended only for the purpose of implementation ofthe Scheme ofthe Central Government. It is trite law that while the recruitment process is governed by the Rules, the same should be scrupulously complied with. The condition of selection was to remain unchanged.

One of the conditions for recruitment was, therefore, selection ofthe candidates. [Para 12] [959-H; 960-A-BJ STATEv. SANJAYKUMARPATHAK 953 3. The Tribunal as also the High Court did not call for the documents pertaining to the selection process. No finding offact has been arrived at that the respondents herein were bound to be selected and consequently appointed. Whether all ofthem had fared better than the other candidates who had not approached the Tribunal had not been found. As the selection process itselfwas not complete, there was nothing before the Tribunal as also the High Court to indicate that they had acquired legal right of any kind whatsoever. Even where, it is trite, the names of the persons. appeared in the selection list, the same by itselfwould not give rise to a legal right unless the action on the part ofthe State is found to be unfair, unreasonable or malafide.

The State, thus, subject to acting bonafide as also complying with the principles laid down in Articles 14and16 ofthe Constitution oflndia, is entitled to take decision not to employ any selected candidate even from amongst the Select List. It is not the contention of the respondents that the State Government acted ma/a. fide. (Para 13] (960-B-F] Shankarasan Dash v. Union ofIndia, (1991] 2 SCR 567; Asha Kaul (Mrs. ) andAnr. v. State ofJammu and Kashmir andOrs. , [1993] 2 SCC 577; K. Jayamohan v. State ofKerala andAnr. , (1997] 5 SCC 170; All India SC & STEmployees' Association andAnr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors. (2001] 6 SCC 380; Food Corporation ofIndia and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors. , (2005] 3 SCC 618 and Pitta Naveen Kumar andOrs. v. RajaNarasaiah Zangiti andOrs. , (2006] 10 SCC 261, relied on Munna Royv. Union ofIndia andOrs. , [2000] 9 SCC 283, referred to. 4.

Ifthe action ofthe State was not bonafide and/or otherwise unfair, the Tribunal and consequently the High Court could exercise their jurisdiction to issue a writ ofor in the nature ofMandamus, as has been sought to be done, but neither any such plea was raised nor the same was otherwise found to be existing. Ordinarily, the writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis of sympathy alone. [Paras 14 and 20] [960-F-G; 963-A-B] ---V Ramakrishna Kamat and Ors. v. State ofKarnataka and Ors. , [2003] 3 sec 374, relied on. Mar. uti Udyod Ltd v. Ram Lal and Ors. , (2005] 2 SCC 638; State ofBihar and Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 9 SCALE 549, Regional Manager, SB/ v. Mahatma Mishra, (2006) 11 SCALE 258 and State ofKarnataka v. Ameerbi and Ors. , (2006) 13, SCALE 319, referred to 5.

However, keeping in view -the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondents shall be entitled to relaxation ofage in the event they intend to take part in the next selection process. The State is also directed to pay a sum ofRs. 10,000/- each to the respondents concerned. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1062 of 2005. From the final Judgment and Order dated 27. 1. 2003 of the High >--- Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W. P. No. 2946 of2002. WITH C. A. Nos. 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 5737of2005 and 4754/2007. Vibha Datta Makhija and B. S. Banthia (N. P. ) for the Appellants. Prakash Shrivastava for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP. 2. The Government oflndia sponsored a project commonly known as Operation Black Board during the Eighth Plan period, i. e.

1992-1997 }in terms whereoffinancial clearance was to be given for appointment of Additional Teachers in all primary/middle schools which had only one teacher in order to improve the standard ofeducation. With a view to implement the said project, the State intended to appoint 7000 to 11000 / 'j teachers. 3. Indisputably, the matter relating to recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Madhya Pradesh is governed by Madhya Pradesh Non- Gazetted Class III Education Service (Non-Collegiate Service) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake ofbrevity as "said Rules"). In terms ofthe said Rules, the method of recruitment was to be by holding competitive examination .. ,, followed by interview. With a view to expedite implementation of the project having regard to the fact that the same was to be implemented within the Eighth Plan period, Rule 10(3) ofthe Recruitment Rules was amended on or about 10. 05.

1993 by adding a proviso thereto which reads, thus: "Provided that in any specific circumstance of the State Government may, in consultation with the General Administrative Department prescribe the criteria and procedure for selection of · candidates. " 4. For the aforementioned purpose, Selection Committees were constituted for recruitment ofAssistant Teachers in each and every district. Selections were to be made district-wise by inviting applications from the Employment Exchanges. The Selection Committee was to prepare a panel upon considering the eligibility criteria ofthe candidates concerned as also upon taking viva voce list. 5. Recruitment process was started in the State on or about 5. 08. 1993. Selection process was to be started from 13. 08. 1993 and was to be completed within a period ofabout one month, viz. , 13. 08. 1993 to 15. 09. 1993. Appointments were to be made in phases.

In these appeals, we are concerned with recruitment of64 Assistant Teachers in Phase 3 and 66 Assistant Teachers in Phase 4. As per the recruitment process, interviews were held in Damoh District for selection ofAssistant Teachers from 1. 09. 1993 to 9. 09. 1993. Questioning, however, the validity ofthe amendment to Rule 10(3) ofthe Recruitment Rules, one 'Zila Mansevi Shikshak Sangh' filed an original application before the Administrative Tribunal. The said application was marked as Application No. 2395 of 1993. An interim order was passed therein directing that no appointment should be made to the persons selected for the appointment as Assistant Teachers in terms ofthe said Scheme. When the Select List for Assistant Teachers for Damoh District was under preparation, a telephonic information was received by the appropriate authority as regards the interim order passed by the Tribunal. Further selection process was directed to be stayed pursuant thereto.

No Select List, therefore, was prepared by the District Selection Committee. No tabulation was done in respect ofthe interviews ofthe candidates and ·y in absence ofpreparation oftabulation, the Select List could not have been and was not prepared. By an order dated 18. 03. 1994 the State Administrative Tribunal declared the said amendment to be illegal being violative ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved thereby, the State Government and other aggrieved candidates filed Special Leave Petitions before this Court and by an order dated 04. 01. 1995, this Court stayed the said order ofthe Tribunal. It is not in dispute that on 24. 04. 1995 the State Government issued offers ofappointments in favour ofthe candidates who had been selected in the year 1993 except those who had appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee ofthe Damoh District. By an order dated 1. 12. 1997 this Court in Arun Tewari v.

Zila Mansevi Shikshak Sangh, [1998] 2 SCC 332, upheld the selection process. 6. 39 Assistant Teachers filed an original application before the Tribunal for a direction upon the State to issue appointment letters to the J selected candidates. Before the Tribunal, Appellant - State specifically raised the plea that the matterrelating to recruitment ofAssistant Teachers has since been entrusted to Janpad Panchayats under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, in the existing vacancies of the Assistant Teachers which were since then known as Samvida Shala Shikshak Varg - III and Shiksha Karmi Varg - III, and teachers were appointed by the Janpad Panchayats in December, 1995. The said application was allowed )by an order dated 19. 05. 1999 stating: "In view of the above discussion it is directed that the aborted process ofselection in Damoh District be now completed and the select list be drawn out as per the laid down procedure and those I STATEv. SANJAYKUMARPATHAK[SINHA,J.

] 957 placed on the select list be offered appointment after following the -f usual fonnalities for appointments under the Government The entire exercise ofdrawing out the select list and issue ofappointment orders shall be completed within two months ofthe date ofthi$ order. Respondents No. 3 and 4 that is Collector and Deputy Director Education Damoh shall be personally responsible for complying with these directions. " The Chairman of the Tribunal, however, passed a separate order observing that the defence taken by the State that there was no vacancy for recruitment to the post ofAssistant Teacher was not acceptable. The Administrative Member ofthe Tribunal expressed his views separately. 7. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. It, however, did not go into the merit of the matter and based its decision on the purported 'peculiarity of the case'.

It although took into consideration the legal question that even ifa person's name appears in the Select List, ordinarily, no right accrues but proceeded to opine: "10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we think that the present cases have their own peculiarity. It is well settled in law that ifthe name appears in the select list ordinarily no right accrues. There may be cases which would depend on different facts and circumstances ofthe case. We do not intend to dilate on that score because ofthe pertaining factual matrix which are enumerated \.. hereunder: - (a) The State Government had taken steps to appoint 11000 Assistant Teachers in the entire undivided Madhya Pradesh and appointments have been made in number of districts before the Tribunal granted stay. (b) After the final order was passed by the Tribunal, the matter travelled to Apex Court and, thereafter, their Lordships passed the order ofstay.

The State Government promptly filled up the posts in respect ofother districts. (c) The selection process in the districts ofDamoh lingered and, _y therefore, the persons who were in the select list or on the third phase could not get the benefit. (d) The persons who have rendered services for a briefperiod long back because ofthe direction given by the Tribunal to consider their cases, they have been appointed. " The High Court restricted the matter relating to grant ofreliefonly to the case ofthe original applications directing: "(a) The State Government shall prepare a list ofcandidates who had approached the Tribunal in the original applications in the order ofmerit as per the select list. (b) The State Government shall offer them appointments in respect ofAssistant Teachers or equivalent posts within a reasonable period oftime. (c) The State shall start taking action within a period ofthree months from today so that bonafide ofthe State would be demonstrative.

(d) The candidates who have not approached the Tribunal could not be benefited by this order for the simple reason that he who is not vigilant loses his right" 8. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant, would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration: (i) the respondents did not have any legal right to be appointed: (ii) there exists a distinction between two categories ofcandidates, viz. , those in whose favour letters ofappointments had been issued but had to be cancelled in view ofthe order ofthe Tribunal and the respondents herein whose names did not figure in the Select List at all. (iii) writ petition should not have been allowed on equity alone as it must flow from a legal right. j 9. Mr.

Prakash Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the Tribunal and consequently the High Court having passed the impugned judgments in the peculiar fact situation obtaining therein, the matter must be considered in the backdrop ofthe following facts: (i) the Recruitment Rules had been struck down; (ii) a stay was operating upto 4. 01. 1995. (iii) the State had issued instructions directing appointment ofall the successful candidates as a result whereof the impugned judgment had been passed. 10. Respondents do not dispute before us that the tabulation ofthe marks obtained by them was not finalized. For the purpose ofselection, the marks allotted to each of the candidates should be known to the members of the Selection Committee.

Members of the Selection ·~ Committee before preparing the Select List were entitled to undergo consultative process so as to enable them to arrive at a consensus in regard to the candidates who should be appointed. As the tabulation process itselfwas not completed, the question ofpreparing any Select List also ~~~ 11. It is true that after the order of stay was vacated by this Court in Arun Tewari (supra), the State issued a circular letter dated 24. 04. 1995 which reads as under: "On the above subject vide referred departmental memo, it is . directed that ofall those teachers whose services were terminated should be reinstated in compliance with thejudgment ofthe Hon'ble Court. In connection with this as per reconsidered decision taken after obtaining opinion ofthe Advocate General appointment should be given to all such persons who have been selected legally under operation black board, in accordance with the rules and after compliance ofall the formalities.

Remaining condition shall remain unchanged. " 12. Recruitment to the posts of Assistant Teacher is governed by statutory rules. Rule 10 ofthe Rules was amended only for the purpose ofimplementation ofthe Scheme ofthe Central Government "Operation Black Board". It is trite law that while the r~ruitment process is governed by the Rules, the same should be scrupulously complied with. The State, having regard to the ultimate decision rendered by this Court, was bound to reinstate those whose services had been terminated and appoint those who had been selected legally. The condition ofselection was to remain unchanged. One ofthe conditions for recn. itment was, therefore, selection of the candidates. 13. The Tribunal as also the High Court did not call for the documents pertaining to the selection process. No finding offact has been arrived at that the respondents herein were bound to be selected and consequently appointed.

Whether all ofthem had fared better than the other candidates who had not approached the Tribunal had not been found. As the selection process itselfwas not complete, there was nothing before the Tribunal as also the High Court to indicate that they had acquired legal right of any kind whatsoever. Even where, it is trite, the names of the persons appeared in the selection list; the same by itself would not give rise to a legal right unless the action on the part ofthe State is found to be unfair, unreasonable or ma/afide. The State, thus, subject to acting bonafide as also complying with the principles laid down in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to take a decision not to employ any selected candidate even from amongst the Select List. Furthermore, we have noticed hereinbefore, that selections were made in 4 phases. It is not the contention ofthe respondents that :J the State Government acted malafide.

The dispute, as noticed hereinbefore related to appointment in Phase 3 and Phase 4 only. 14. Ifthe action of the State was not bonajide and/ or otherwise unfair, in our opinion, the Tribunal and consequently the High Court could exercise their jurisdiction to issue a writ ofor in the nature ofMandamus, as has been sought to be done, but neither any such plea was raised nor the same was otherwise found to be existing. 15. It is well-known that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. [See Shankarasan Dash v. Union ofIndia, [1991] 2 SCR 567, Asha Kaul (Mrs. ) and Anr. v. State of Jammu and 'f Kashmir and Ors. , [1993] 2 SCC 577] 16. In K Jayamohan v. State ofKera/a andAnr. , [1997] 5 SCC 170, this court held: "5. It is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment. It is open to the Government to make the appointment or not.

Even ifthere is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same. But the appointing authority must give reasonable explanation for nonappointment. Equally, the Public Service Commission/recruitment agency shall prepare waiting list only to the extent ofanticipated vacancies. In view of the above settled legal position, no error is found in the judgment ofthe High Court warranting interference. " [See also Munna Roy v. Union ofIndia and Ors. , [2000] 9 SCC -~ 283] 17. In All India SC & ST Employees' Association and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors. , [2001] 6 SCC 380, it was opined: "10.

Merely because the names ofthe candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any ofthe vacancies as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court, after referring to earlier cases in Shankarsan Dash v. Union ofIndia. Para 7 of the said judgment reads thus :- "It is not correct to say that ifa number ofvacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number ofcandidates are found fit, . the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be , appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any ofthe vacancies.

However, it does not mean that the State has the licence ,-\' ofacting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. And ifthe vacancies or any ofthem are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit ofthe candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently·followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana or Jatendra Kumar v. State ofPunjab. " 18. The principles laid down in the aforementioned cases have been upheld by this Court in Food Corporation ofIndia and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors. , [2005] 3 SCC 618 stating: . "14. Merely because vacancies are notified, the State is not obliged to fill up all the vacancies unless there is some provision to the contrary in the applicable rules.

However, there is no doubt that the decision not to fill up the vacancies, has to be taken bonafide and must pass the test of reasonableness so as not to fail on the touchstone ofArticle 14 ofthe Constitution. Again, ifthe vacaricies are proposed to be filled, 'then the State is obliged to fill them in accordance with merit from the list of the selected candidates. Whether to fill up or not to fill up a post, is a policy decision, and unless it is infected with the vice ofarbitrariness, there is no scope for interference in judicial review... " 19. In Pitta Naveen Kumar and Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Ors. , [2006] 10 SCC 261, this Court observed: 'The legal position obtaining in this behalfis not in dispute. A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor.

Consideration of the case ofan individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage ofthe candidates concerned and not otherwise... " '! r STATEv. SANJAYKUMARPATHAK[SINHA,J. ] -{ In a situation ofthis nature, no appointment could be made by the State in absence ofthe Select List. The State could not substitute itself for the Selection Committee. 20. Furthermore, ordinarily, the writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis ofsympathy alone. In Ramakrishna Kamat and Ors. v. State ofKarnataka and Ors. , [2003] 3 sec 374 albeit in the light ofright ofregularization in service, this Court opined: "... It is clear from the order ofthe learned single Judge and looking to the very directions given a very sympathetic view was taken.

We do not find it either just or proper to show any further sympathy in the given facts and circumstances ofthe case. While being sympathetic to the persons who come before the court the courts cannot at the same time be unsympathetic to the large .. \ number ofeligible persons waiting for a long time in a long (SIC) seeking employment. .. " [See also Maruti Udyod Ltd V. Ram Lal and Ors. , [2005] 2 sec 638, State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 9 SCALE 549, Regional Manager, SB! v. Mahatma Mishra. (2006) 11 SCALE 258 and State ofKarnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. , (2006) 13 SCALE319] \. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of-the case, we direct that the I respondents shall be entitled to relaxation ofage in the event they intend to take part in the next selection process. The State is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.

I0,000/- each to the respondents concerned. The appeals are allowed. No costs. l K. K. T. Appeals allowed.