Supreme Court limits selection to advertised posts, stresses adherence to recruitment rules

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case involving the interpretation of an advertisement for Assistant Prosecuting Officers' posts by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. The Court ruled that selection should be limited to the initially advertised 38 posts and appointments beyond this should only be made in exceptional circumstances, not for future vacancies. It emphasized the importance of adhering to recruitment rules and principles of service law in public employment matters, directing authorities to expedite the selection process due to the shortage of Assistant Prosecuting Officers in Uttarakhand.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of advertisement for Assistant Prosecuting Officers' posts.
2. Validity of filling up additional posts beyond advertised vacancies.
3. Compliance with recruitment rules and principles of service law.

Issue 1: Interpretation of advertisement for Assistant Prosecuting Officers' posts
The case involved a dispute arising from an advertisement by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for Assistant Prosecuting Officers' posts. The advertisement mentioned 38 posts but allowed for the State Government to vary the number of vacancies. A preliminary examination was conducted due to a large number of applicants, and the High Court directed that selection should be limited to the initially advertised 38 posts. The Appellants contested this decision, arguing that more than 38 posts were available at the time of advertisement, and the High Court erred in not considering the shortage of Assistant Prosecuting Officers in Uttarakhand.

Issue 2: Validity of filling up additional posts beyond advertised vacancies
The High Court relied on the Uttar Pradesh Prosecuting Officers Service Rules to determine that selection should only be for clear and anticipated vacancies, not future vacancies. It directed the filling of the advertised 38 posts and commencement of the process for additional 36 vacancies requisitioned later. The Appellants claimed that no additional posts were created within the recruitment year, and the Government could have included them in the selection list if created during that period. The Supreme Court cited precedent to emphasize that appointments beyond advertised vacancies should only be made in exceptional circumstances, such as due to death or retirement, and not for future vacancies.

Issue 3: Compliance with recruitment rules and principles of service law
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the Civil Appeals. It concluded that the selection should be limited to the posts advertised, and any additional posts created after the recruitment year must be filled through a fresh advertisement. Despite considering the Appellants' situation, the Court clarified that judicial discretion cannot override statutory rules and directed the authorities to expedite the selection process due to the shortage of Assistant Prosecuting Officers in Uttarakhand. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to recruitment rules and principles of service law in public employment matters.

---