Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Harpinder Pal Singh vs Shri Rajiv Prashar (Pcs) on 27 November, 2018
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 13483-13487/2015
HARPINDER PAL SINGH ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SHRI RAJIV PRASHAR (PCS)
& ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
C.A. NO. 13499/2015 (IV)
C.A. NO. 13488-13493/2015 (IV)
C.A. NO. 13494-13498/2015 (IV)
ORDER
1. Respondent Nos. 3 to 9, namely, Rajiv Prashar, Amarpal Singh, Viney Bublani, Hoshiar Pal, Babita, Gurpal Singh, Puneet Goyal in Civil Writ Petition 6299 of 1995 filed by Naresh Dubey out of which Civil Appeal Nos.13488-13493 of 2015 have arisen were appointed on compassionate ground against vacancies in Class-I of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA which posts were required under the Date: 2018.11.28 16:37:34 IST Reason: relevant Statutory Rules to be filled up by 2 direct recruitment. This resulted in a reduction of number of posts which were advertised, namely, 18 out of which 7 posts were earmarked for General Category candidates. The merit list was strictly followed in appointing Serial Nos. 1 to 7 in the said list against the general category posts. The appellants herein figured at Serial Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 respectively in the said merit list and were, therefore, not appointed. Consequently, Civil Writ Petition No.6299 of 1995 and other connected writ petitions were filed seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:
“(i) call for the entire
record of the case;
(ii) issue a writ of
mandamus directing the
respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to PCS (Executive Branch) after placing his name in the register B under Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Class I Rules, 1976 in 3 view of his being placed at Sr. No.8 in the merit list prepared by respondent no.2;
(iii) issue a writ of
certiorari quashing the
selection and appointment of any candidate contrary to the provisions of statutory rules including respondents no. 3 to 9 if the appointment of such candidates is from the vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment;
(iv) issue any other
appropriate writ, order or
direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the instant case;
(v) exemption from filing certified copies of annexures;
(vi) exemption from
issuing advance notices to the
respondents;”
2. The learned single judge hearing
the writ petitions thought it proper to
allow the same and balanced the equities that had arisen in view of the long efflux of time, the appointments having been made way back in the year 1993. The Division 4 Bench hearing the Letter Patent Appeals arising out of the order of the learned single judge took the view that the appointments on compassionate ground against the Class-I posts, in the facts of the case, and the prevailing scenario in the State of Punjab at the relevant point of time was fully justified. The order of the learned single judge of the High Court was, therefore, reversed. Challenging the said order of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in the Letter Patent Appeals the present group of appeals have been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have considered the materials on record.
4. While the State of Punjab has sought to justify the appointments made on compassionate ground against Class-I posts 5 by seeking to draw the attention of the Court to the circumstances then prevailing in the State of Punjab which was seriously affected by terrorism, we do not consider it necessary to go into the said question in the present group of appeals as the matter is capable of being decided on the second issue arising.
5. The prayer made in the writ petitions is to appoint the writ petitioners (appellants before us) to Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) after placing their names in register B under Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Class I Rules, 1976 by virtue of their positions in the merit list. The next prayer made in the writ petitions is to quash the selection and appointment of the respondents appointed on compassionate ground.
6
6. Not only the specific order of the Government taking away some of the posts from the process of direct recruitment has not been specifically called into question before the High Court, what cannot be overlooked is the fact that even we are to hold that the appointments on compassionate ground against Class I posts are untenable in law the prayer of the writ petitioners (appellants before us) i.e. to appoint them to PCS (Executive Branch) cannot be granted inasmuch as the number of advertised posts was 18, 7 of them being general category posts and the persons at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 of the merit list have been appointed against the said posts. The appellants before us are at Serial Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 respectively in the said merit list and, therefore, not entitled to be appointed against the advertised posts. 7
7. At best, on a finding that the appointments of the respondents are illegal the posts would have to be re-advertised. What would have been the outcome of the said exercise would be a matter of speculation. Insofar as the relief sought in the writ petitions, namely, to quash and set aside the selection and appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in the Civil Writ Petition No.6299 of 1995 made on compassionate ground is concerned, the same may not be feasible. Even if the said appointments are to be set aside it would not bring in direct and immediate benefit to the appellants as the posts will have to be again re-advertised.
8. At this belated stage when more than 25 years have elapsed and the persons appointed would be on the verge of their superannuation we do not think any of the prayers made in the writ petitions ought to 8 be granted. We, therefore, though for slightly different reasons, uphold the order of the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the Letter Patent Appeals.
9. Consequently and in the light of the above, the present appeals are dismissed. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand disposed of.
...................,CJI.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(K.M. JOSEPH) ...................,J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
9
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 13483-13487/2015 HARPINDER PAL SINGH APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHRI RAJIV PRASHAR (PCS) & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. NO. 13499/2015 (IV) C.A. NO. 13488-13493/2015 (IV) C.A. NO. 13494-13498/2015 (IV) Date : 27-11-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Appellant(s) CA 13483-13487/15 Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR CA 13499/15 Mr. A.K. Vali, Adv.
Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR Mr. Tuhin, Adv.
CA 13488-93/15 Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satinder S. Gulati, Adv. Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, AOR CA 13494-98/15 Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, AOR For Respondent(s) State of Punjab Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR 10 Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Abhishek Puri, Adv. Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Adv.
Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, AOR Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subranshu Padhi, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Praveen Vignesh, Adv.
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subranshu Padhi, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Adv. Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv. Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Debasis Misra, AOR Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR Ms. Neha Tyagi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ANAND PRAKASH]
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]