STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. v. JAGDISH CHOPRA

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 599

Court: Supreme Court of India

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

Case summary

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. v. JAGDISH CHOPRA.pdf

Judgment text

l- STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. v. JAGDISH CHOPRA AUGUST 30, 2007 (S. B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI,JJ. ) Service Law: Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971-Rule 9 (3)- Recruitment under-Candidate applied for. the post ofteacher and pfaced at serial no. JO in select list for a particular year-Non-joining of candidate at serial no 8-Vacant post carried forward to next year-Candidate at serial no JO in select list ofprevious year applied but not appointed-Single Judge of High Court holding that candidate had no legal right to be appointed-Set aside by Division Bench-On appeal, held: Single Judge was right in holding that candidate has no legal right to be appointed-However, during the pendency of SLP, the State appointed the candidate not due to his merit but due to the orders of Division Bench-Thus, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 and long pendency ofthe matter, appointment to be continued-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142.

In the State ofRajasthan, teachers were employed on yearly basis and vacancies for each year was determined separately. In 1995-96, vacancies arose and 19 posts were to be filled up by teachers (physical education). Respondent applied for the post and his name was at serial No. 10 of the select . >- list prepared. Candidate at serial No. 8 in the merit list did not join and the said vacant post was carried forward to the next year. Respondent applied for the same post in the said year and could not be appointed since he was placed at serial No. 23 in the merit list. Aggrieved, respondent filed writ petition. The Single Judge of High Court dismissed the petition holding that the respondent had no legal right to be appointed since the validity of the merit list had expired. Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge without deciding whether the se~t list has remained valid or not. Hence the present1 appeal Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1.

Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is governed by the statutory rules. Therefore, all recruitments are required to be made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9(3) of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 does not specifically provide for the period for which the merit list shall remain valid but the intent of the legislature is absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined . only once in a year. Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years could be filled up from the select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even otherwise, in absence ofany rule, ordinary period ofvalidity ofselect list should be one year. The Single Judge of the High Court was correct in holding that the respondent has no legal right to be appointed. [Paras 7 and 8) (603-D, E; 604-A) Shankarasan Dash v. Union ofIndia, {1991) 2 SCR 567 and Asha Kaul (Mrs. ) and Anr. v. State ofJammu and Kashmir and Ors. , (1993) 2 SCC 577, relied on. State ofBihar and Ors.

v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 9 SCALE 549; K. Jayamohan v. State ofKera/a and Anr. , [1997) 5 SCC 170; Munna Roy v. Union ofIndia and Ors. , (2000) 9 SCC 283; All India SC and ST Employees' Association and Anr. 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 and Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Ors. , (2006) 10 SCC. 261, referred to. 1. 2. The Division Bench was not at all justified in directing grant of service benefits to the responden_t from the date on which the appointed candidate at serial No. 9 in the merit list ought to have joined the post. Such a direction is wholly unwarranted. However, the impugned judgment cannot --{ . be set aside because of the fact that the·State has appointed the respondent not by reason of his merit in the select list but by reason of the orders of the High Court during the pendency ofthis Special Leave Petition.

Furthermore even a stay of further proceedings in the contempt petition has been passed by this Court. Therefore, in exercise ofjurisdiction un~er Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in view of the fact that matter is pending for a long time it is directed that the, respondent may be continued as ifhe was appointed on and from the date he joined the service. (Para 11) (605-G; 606-A-C) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3987 of2007. From the final Judgment ~md Order dated 19. 04. 2005 of the High Court ofRajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1462 of 1997. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv. Genl. Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Shashwat . Gupta and Adarsh Sabharwal for the Appellants. \ Aishwarya Bhati for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Appellant-State employs teachers on yearly basis. Vacancies for each year are separately determined.

Recruitment ofteachers is made in terms of Rajasthan Education Subordinate Services Rules, 1971 (the Act). It remains valid for one year that is from the first day of April to 31st March. Rule 9(3) of the said Rules read thus ; "Rule 9(3) Whether vacancies can be determined more than once in a year. Vacancies shall be determined only once a year: Vacancies occurring after the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting has been held shall be treated as the vacancies of the next year. Variation in the vacancies that may crop up between the date of requisitioning the Department Promotion Committee and the date of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held shall be taken into account at the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting. " _-..... 3. For the year 1995-96, there were 33 vacancies and advertisements were issued therefor. Respondent herein was one of the applicants for the said post. The Selection Committee prepared a select list. The respondent's name figured at serial No.

I0 of the said list. Out of 33 vacancies, 19 posts were to be filled up by Teachers (Physical Education) and 14 posts were meant for Teachers (Grade-III). Out of 19 posts of Teachers (Physical Education), 9 posts were for General Category candidates; 5 posts were reserved for OBC candidates; 2 posts for Scheduled Castes candidate and one post for Scheduled Tribes candidate. One post was to be filled on the '~ vacancies arising out of appointment on compassionate grounds. The date ofjoining was fixed on 12. 04. 1996. The candidate placed at serial No. 8 in the merit list did not join. The vacant post was said to have been carried forward to 1996-97. Respondent had also applied for the post of Teacher (Physical Education) in the said year but he was been placed at serial No. 23 in the merit - - Ors. , [2006] IO SCC 261, this Court observed: "The legal position obtaining in this behalf is 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 of an 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 of the candidates • . 1.. , concerned and not otherwise... " 11. Furthermore, the Division Bench was not at all justified in directing grant of service benefits to the respondent from the date on which the appointed candidate at serial No. 9 in the merit list ought to have joined the post. Such a direction, in our opinion, is wholly unwarranted. We, however, cannot set aside the impugned judgment because of the fact that the State has appointed the respondent during the pendency of this Special Leave Petition. We may furthermore notice that even a stay offurther proceedings in the contempt petition has been P. assed by this Court by an order dated 16. 05. 2007.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that it will not be proper for this Court now at this juncture to set aside the said appointment as the appointment granted in favour of the respondent by the State was hot by reason of his merit in the select list but by reason ofthe orders ofthe High Court. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending for a long time, are of the opinion that a direction should be issued that the appointment of the respondent may be directed to be continued as if he was appointed on and from the date he joined the service. 12. The appeal is allowed to the afore mentioned extent. Parties are left to bear their own costs. N. J. Appeal partly allowed.