Ignoring merit in public job selection violation of Constitution: SC
What's the story
Selections to public employment should be on the basis of merit and appointing people with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court said.
The observation was made by a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Indira Banerjee while upholding an order of the Jharkhand High Court.
Information
The order of the Jharkhand High Court
The order of the Jharkhand High Court allowed the appointment of 43 persons for the post of Police Sub-Inspectors on the basis of their merit after authorities prepared a revised select list correcting the irregularities.
Background
Events that led to the judgment
An advertisement was issued for the appointment to the posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, Attendants (Sergeant), and Company Commanders by the Home Department of the Government of Jharkhand in 2008.
The final result was published and 382 candidates were selected but later a High-Level Committee was constituted by the state government to examine the irregularities in the selection process.
The case
Unsuccessful candidates filed petitions in the Jharkhand HC
Unsuccessful candidates filed petitions in the HC of Jharkhand.
During the pendency of the petitions, the appointments of 42 candidates made on the basis of the original select list were canceled.
As many as 43 people were appointed on the basis of the revised select list that was prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee headed by the Director-General of Police, Jharkhand.
Judgment
This is what the High Court had observed
The High Court had observed that 43 petitioners cannot be held responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in the matter of their selection and there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on their part.
The top court rejected the plea filed by some intervenors saying that they have no right for appointment to posts beyond those advertised.
Details
Grounds on which 43 petitioners were granted relief
The judgment said that relief granted to 43 petitioners is mainly on the ground that they have already been appointed and have served the state for some time and they cannot be punished for no fault of theirs.
The intervenors are not similarly situated to them and they cannot seek the same relief, it added.
Information
Ground taken by the intervenors in the petitions
"The other ground taken by the intervenors in the petitions before us is that relief was denied to them only on the basis of a wrong statement made on behalf of the State Government that there were no vacancies," the bench said.
Details
Reason for not granting relief to the intervenors
No doubt, the intervenors have placed on record material to show that there was no shortage of vacancies for their appointment. One of the reasons given by the HC for not granting relief to the intervenors is the lack of vacancies.
However, we are not inclined to direct appointment of the intervenors as selections pertain to an advertisement issued in 2008, the bench added.