Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Recruitment Of Candidates In Excess Of Notified Vacancies Would Be Unconstitutional: Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
6 Feb 2021 12:24 PM GMT
Recruitment Of Candidates In Excess Of Notified Vacancies Would Be Unconstitutional: Supreme Court
x

The Supreme Court observed that recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.An authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra and Vineet Saran observed while setting aside an order passed by the...

The Supreme Court observed that recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.

An authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao,  Indu Malhotra and Vineet Saran observed while setting aside an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Government of Maharashtra vide Government Circular dated 27.06.2016 notified 828 vacancies for promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspector through the LDCE– 2016. Later, vide a Government Resolution, it notified a policy decision to accommodate 636 additional candidates who had secured more than 230 marks in the LDCE – 2016 examination.  This resolution is under challenge before the Administrative Tribunal. An interim 'status quo' order passed by the Tribunal was later vacated by it. The High Court issued a direction to the State to send the additional list of 636 candidates for training of 9 months during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal.

"The impugned G.R. seeks to fill up double the number of vacancies which were notified for the LCDE – 2016 by the Circular dated 27.06.2016. It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.", the Apex Court bench observed. 

The court further noted that Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution of India provides that the Union Public Service Commission, or the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services, and for civil posts. It observed "In the present case, we find that the State of Maharashtra has issued the impugned G.R. dated 22.04.2019, without any consultation or prior approval by the MPSC, which is evident from the letter dated 11.07.2019 issued by the MPSC to the Government, expressing its disapproval of the decision taken by the Government unilaterally to make these appointments without any consultation. 14. Rule 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of service require, the ratio prescribed for appointment by promotion, on the basis of Limited Departmental Examination or nomination, may be relaxed with the prior consultation of the Commission. The Government would be required to establish before the Tribunal as to whether there were any extra-ordinary circumstances which have warranted the exercise of power under Rule 5, which may be resorted to only in rare and exceptional circumstances."

The bench, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, therefore observed that the Government Resolution will remain stayed during the pendency of proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Case: Gajanan Babulal Bansode Vs. State Of Maharashtra
Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra and Vineet Saran
Citation : LL 2021 SC 67

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment




Next Story