Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The matter, however did not end there. The State Government after the judgment dated September 28, 1994 took a decision that the candidates who were selected in order of merit and whose appointments had not been approved by the High Court might be appointed on ad hoc basis for 89 days at a time and that this would be a stop gap arrangement and that the process of further recruitment might be restarted by inviting fresh application through advertisement. This action of the State Government was against challenged in various writ petitions in the High Court being Writ Petition No. 18331/94 and batch of other writ petitions. These writ petitions were disposed of by order dated March 28, 1995 and the action of the State Government giving ad hoc appointments on 89 days basis was upheld but at the same time the High Court issued various directions for filling up future vacancies. It is, however, not necessary for us to set out those directions. The High Court in its judgment dated March 28, 1995 noted an order dated January 10, 1995 of another Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 14347/94 where also the High Court had directed the State Government to complete the fresh selection process and in the meanwhile allowed services of candidates on ad hoc basis to continue till the availability of candidates selected on regular basis. We may also note that contempt proceedings were initiated as the State Government did not fill up future vacancies within the time framework set up by the High Court to complete the fresh selection process. The High Court, however, extended time for the purpose and fixed a further date after which the ad hoc appointments of the candidates would terminate. The appellants before us are those candidates whose ad hoc appointments had been extended from time to time till regular appointments were made in terms of various orders of the High Court.

In pursuance to various orders of the High Court 10,000 fresh posts of various categories of teachers were advertised on December 28, 1994 and the process of selection had since been completed. These candidates, however, could not be appointed because of intervention of this Court in staying the impugned judgment dated September 28, 1994 in these appeals. Meanwhile two further advertisements for appointments to teachers for 10,000 and 12,220 posts were made on January 12, 1996 and October 18, 1996 respectively and it is stated by the State that the process of their selection is on. We may also again note that the appellants in the present appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 23952/96 and 5570/97 are those who are being appointed on ad hoc basis for 89 days at a time and they had also applied for their appointments in pursuance to subsequent advertisements but it would appear since they could not be selected they filed these appeals after great deal of delay. They cannot have any equity in their favour even otherwise for having enjoyed the ad hoc status for about two years. In view of what we have stated above it may not be necessary for us to consider any further submissions of the appellants. However, we may refer to a decision of this Court in Prem Singh & Others v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors., [1996] 4 SCC 319 on which strong reliance had been placed by the appellants. In this case the Court considered various judgments of this Court on the question whether appointments over and above those advertised could be justified and in this context para 26 of the judgment was referred to which is as under :

"In the present case, as against the 62 advertised posts the Board made appointments on 138 posts. The selection process was started for 62 clear vacancies and at that time anticipated vacancies were not taken into account. Therefore, strictly speaking, the Board was not justified in making more than 62 appointments pursuant to the advertisement published on

2.11.1991 and the selection process which followed thereafter. But as the Board could have taken into account not only the actual vacancies but also vacancies which were likely to arise because of retirement etc. by the time the selection process was completed it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all the appointments made on posts in excess of 62. however, the appointments which were made against future vacan-cies - in this case on posts which were newly created - must be regarded as invalid. As stated earlier, after the selection process had stated 13 posts had become vacant because of retirement and 12 because of deaths. The vacancies which were likely to arise as a result of retirement could have been reasonably anticipated by the Board. The Board through oversight had not taken them into consideration while a requisition was made for filling up 62 posts. Even with respect to the appointments made against vacancies which arose because of deaths, a lenient view can be taken and on consideration of expediency and equity they need not be quashed. Therefore, in view of the special facts and circumstances of this case we do not think it proper to invalidate the appointments made on those 25 additional posts. But the appointments made by the Board on posts beyond 87 are held invalid. Though the High Court was right in the view it has taken, we modify its order to the aforesaid extent. These appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

Keeping the above principles in view, if we analyse the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that no exceptional circumstance existed or there was any emergent situation for the State to deviate from the principle of limiting the number of appointments so advertised. In our view, the High Court was right in setting aside the appointments of teachers over and above those advertised. The State accepted the judgment of the High Court and did not come up in appeal in this Court. However, to get over the situation created because of the fact that more vacancies of teachers were noticed during the period of interview, it appointed can- didates more than the number of posts advertised on ad hoc basis and continued them as such till fresh process of selection was gone into. Admittedly, that process is on and in various writ petitions the High Court has been issuing directions from time to time extending the ad hoc appoint- ments and in the meanwhile to complete the process of fresh selection. As noticed above, selection of 10,000 more candidates for appointment to various categories of teachers has already been completed and selection process of about 22,000 more such teachers has either been completed by now or under completion. We do not think at this stage that we should interfere in the matter and set the clock back particularly when we find no ground to invalidate the impugned judgment of the High Court. In the present appeals, there is no appellant who can claim to fall within the first 2461 posts for which advertisement was issued.