2021 (2) TMI 1315 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms High Court's decision on police recruitment irregularities, reinstates terminated individuals

Anmol Kumar Tiwari and Ors. Versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in a case concerning irregularities in the selection process for police posts in Jharkhand. The Court ... Appointment to 384 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors, Attendants (Sergeant) and Company Commanders by the Home Department of the Government of Jharkhand - during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the appointments of 42 candidates made on the basis of the original select list were cancelled - State Government contended that the High Court ought not to have directed the appointment of the Writ Petitioners as they were initially appointed due to irregularities committed by the authorities in the selection process. Correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners - HELD THAT:- The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh's case [2013 (7) TMI 1065 - SUPREME COURT], where this Court considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the Appellants-therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the Appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh's case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present. Claim of the intervenors in the Writ Petitions for appointment - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that selections to public employment should be on the basis of merit. Appointment of persons with lesser merit ignoring those who have secured more marks would be in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The intervenors in the Writ Petitions admittedly have secured more marks than the Writ Petitioners. After cancellation of the appointments of the Writ Petitioners, 43 persons have been appointed from the revised select list. Those 43 persons have secured more marks than the interveners. By the appointment of 43 persons, the number of posts that were advertised i.e. 384 have been filled up. The interveners have no right for appointment to posts beyond those advertised. The contention on behalf of the interveners in the Writ Petitions is that they cannot be ignored when relief is granted to the Writ Petitioners who were less meritorious than them. We are unable to agree - 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 High Court for not granting relief to the intervenors is lack of vacancies. However, we are not inclined to direct appointment of the interveners as selections in issue pertain to an advertisement issued in 2008. Subsequently, selections to posts of Sub-Inspectors have been held and a large number of persons were appointed. The number of posts advertised in 2008 is 384 and the intervenors have no right for appointment for posts beyond those advertised. They cannot claim any parity with the Writ Petitioners. The judgment of the High Court is upheld and the Appeals are dismissed. Issues:1. Irregularities in the selection process for appointment to police posts in Jharkhand.2. Termination of services of 42 individuals and subsequent legal challenges.3. High Court's direction to reinstate the terminated individuals.4. Claim of intervenors for appointment based on higher merit.5. Dismissal of Letters Patent Appeals by the Division Bench.6. Consideration of vacancies and appointments in the police force of Jharkhand.7. Application of principles of merit and fairness in public employment.Analysis:Issue 1: Irregularities in the selection process- An advertisement for 384 police posts in Jharkhand led to irregularities in the selection process due to ignoring merit and giving undue importance to candidate preferences.- A High-Level Committee identified these irregularities, leading to legal challenges and cancellations of initial appointments.Issue 2: Termination of services and legal challenges- 42 individuals challenged the termination of their services, leading to a judgment by a Single Judge of the High Court declaring their appointments irregular.- The High Court directed their reinstatement considering their training completion and service period.Issue 3: High Court's direction for reinstatement- High Court ordered the reinstatement of terminated individuals, treating their appointments as fresh against existing or future vacancies.- The Court observed that the terminated individuals were not responsible for the irregularities in the selection process.Issue 4: Claim of intervenors for appointment- Intervenors, with higher merit than the reinstated individuals, sought appointment but were denied relief due to lack of vacancies.- The State Government argued against their appointment, citing restructuring of the police force and limited advertised vacancies.Issue 5: Dismissal of Letters Patent Appeals- Division Bench dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment and rejecting the intervenors' claim for appointment based on higher merit.Issue 6: Consideration of vacancies and appointments- The Court considered the number of vacancies and appointments made in the police force post the irregular selection process, emphasizing adherence to merit-based selection.Issue 7: Application of merit and fairness in public employment- Upholding the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of merit in public employment and the unique circumstances of the case.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of merit-based selection in public employment and considering the unique circumstances of the case in Jharkhand's police recruitment process.