Direct recruitment cannot be converted into fixed tenure after selection begins; continuous challenge also defeats delay and laches.

Where recruitment rules and the advertisement contemplated direct recruitment without prescribing a fixed tenure, the appointing authority could not later convert the appointment into an initial five-year term or otherwise alter the selection conditions after the process had begun; that deviation was held arbitrary and inconsistent with the governing framework. The challenge was also not barred by delay and laches, because the appellant had continuously pursued correction through representations and the grievance arose again when fresh recruitment steps were taken. As the appointment was found unlawful, consequential relieving and subsequent appointment actions could not stand, and relief was moulded through notional continuation with monetary and retiral benefits up to superannuation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's appointment as Director General, CPRI could validly be converted into an initial tenure of five years notwithstanding that the recruitment framework and advertisement contemplated direct recruitment without prescribing a tenure; (ii) Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on delay and laches, and whether relief could nonetheless be granted.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's appointment as Director General, CPRI could validly be converted into an initial tenure of five years notwithstanding that the recruitment framework and advertisement contemplated direct recruitment without prescribing a tenure?

Analysis: The recruitment rules and the advertisement provided for appointment by direct recruitment or deputation, but only deputation carried a fixed period. For direct recruitment, no tenure was prescribed. The recommendation moved for approval contemplated direct recruitment until superannuation or until further orders, but the approval and appointment letter introduced an initial tenure of five years and later eligibility for reappointment. That alteration changed the conditions of selection after the process had begun and was inconsistent with the governing recruitment framework. Such departure from the prescribed mode and terms of appointment was held to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Conclusion: The conversion of the direct recruitment appointment into an initial five-year tenure was illegal and contrary to the governing rules and the advertisement, and was therefore invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on delay and laches, and whether relief could nonetheless be granted?

Analysis: The appellant had persistently sought correction of the appointment order through repeated representations, and the challenge was triggered when a fresh recruitment advertisement was issued and later when another person was appointed. The matter was not one of stale or dormant litigation brought after abandonment of the claim. Delay and laches were therefore not a proper ground to refuse adjudication on merits. Once the appointment itself was found unlawful, the consequential relieving order and subsequent appointment to the post could not stand. In view of the appellant's imminent superannuation, the Court moulded relief by directing notional continuation and monetary and retiral benefits rather than actual displacement of the incumbent.

Conclusion: The writ petitions ought not to have been dismissed for delay and laches, and the appellant was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the appellant was granted notional reinstatement with consequential monetary and retiral benefits up to superannuation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the recruitment rules and advertisement prescribe direct recruitment without a tenure, the appointing authority cannot later impose a fixed tenure or otherwise alter the terms of selection after the process has commenced; such a change is arbitrary and violative of equality norms, and delay and laches will not bar relief where the challenge is pursued continuously and the impugned action itself is unlawful.

---