Case Note & Summary
The case involved appeals by the State of Orissa against an order of the High Court directing the appointment of selected candidates for junior grade typists. The selection list was published on December 3, 1987, with 871 candidates empanelled, of which 845 were from the general category and 27 from the scheduled caste category. While 184 general category candidates and all scheduled caste candidates were appointed, the remaining general category candidates approached the tribunal for appointment, which directed the State to comply with its order on March 1, 1993. However, the State did not comply, leading to a writ petition in the High Court, which ordered the State to appoint the candidates. The Supreme Court noted the significant time lapse since the selection and reiterated that a selectee does not have an indefeasible right to appointment. The Court criticized the High Court for acting as an Executing Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is only applicable in cases of miscarriage of justice or apparent errors of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of both the High Court and the tribunal, allowing the appeals without costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - High Court's Power under Article 226 - High Court cannot act as an Executing Court - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction to implement the tribunal's order was inappropriate as it acted beyond its jurisdiction, which is limited to addressing miscarriages of justice and errors of law. The Court emphasized that a selectee does not possess an indefeasible right to appointment, leading to the conclusion that the orders of the High Court and tribunal were unsustainable in law. Held that the appeals were allowed and the previous orders set aside (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in directing the appointment of selected candidates despite the lapse of time and the principle that a selectee does not have an indefeasible right to appointment.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the High Court and the tribunal, stating that the High Court cannot act as an Executing Court under Article 226.
Law Points
- Right to appointment
- Judicial review
- Article 226 of the Constitution
- Selectee rights
