Case Note & Summary
The case involved a dispute regarding the legality of appointing candidates beyond the number of vacancies advertised for government service in Assam. An advertisement published on 4th November 2006 invited applications for 160 seats in the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Institute, attracting around 12,000 applicants. Following a selection process, a select list of 160 candidates was published, but subsequent lists were not approved by the government, leading to legal challenges. The petitioners argued that the government should fill available vacancies from the select list, while the respondents contended that appointments could not exceed the advertised number. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court upheld the respondents' position, leading to the filing of Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court. The petitioners contended that the court had previously allowed deviations from advertised vacancies under certain circumstances. However, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that appointments must adhere strictly to the advertised vacancies to ensure fairness and equality, rejecting the petitioners' arguments and dismissing the Special Leave Petitions. The court emphasized that any deviation from the advertisement principles would be arbitrary and violate constitutional rights (Paras 1-19).
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Government Appointments - Compliance with Advertised Vacancies - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16 - The court held that appointments cannot exceed the number of vacancies advertised, as it would violate the principles of equality and fair opportunity. The necessity for a fresh advertisement arises when filling vacancies beyond those initially advertised (Paras 4-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether appointments can be made in Government service beyond the number of vacancies advertised
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, affirming that appointments cannot exceed the number of vacancies advertised and that a fresh advertisement is required for any additional vacancies. The court found no exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from this principle.
Law Points
- Appointments beyond advertised vacancies
- Articles 14 and 16 compliance
- necessity of fresh advertisement
- deviation from advertisement principles
