Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from recruitment to Class III and Class IV posts under the Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985. The respondents were candidates included in a select list prepared on 4.4.1987 by the statutory Selection Committee. They alleged that though vacancies existed during 1987, the appointing authority arbitrarily did not fill up the vacancies and ignored the select list, filling vacancies according to its own will, thereby infringing their rights. The respondents filed writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court in 1990 and 1992 seeking a mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint them from the 1987 select list. The State contested the petitions, contending that under Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules, the select list remained valid only for one year from the date of selection and had become inoperative after 4.4.1988; it also pleaded that there was only one vacancy during the relevant year. The High Court, relying on certain earlier decisions, held that the select list does not lapse on expiry of one year and concluded that several vacancies had occurred after 4.4.1987 due to superannuation, rejecting the State's stand. Consequently, the High Court directed the State to appoint the writ petitioners. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court challenging both High Court orders. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding delay of 480 days in filing the special leave petition and availability of an alternative remedy of special appeal before the Division Bench. The Supreme Court condoned the delay, holding that the bureaucratic process and merits of the case justified condonation. It also held that availability of an alternative remedy is a self-imposed restriction and does not oust the jurisdiction under Article 136, especially given the patent error by the High Court and pendency of more than two years. On merits, the Court extracted Rule 26 and found that the select list shall hold good for one year from the date of selection. It held that the High Court committed a patent error in ignoring this statutory rule and concluding that the list did not expire. The Court reiterated that mandamus can be issued only when the applicant has a subsisting legal right on the date of the petition; since the 1987 list had expired on 4.4.1988 and the respondents approached the High Court much later, no such right existed. The Court also deprecated the practice of making appointments from expired select lists, observing that such illegal actions do not confer an enforceable right under Article 226. It declined to examine the dispute about vacancy position, as the conclusion on expiry of the select list was sufficient to dispose of the appeals. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Direct Recruitment - Validity of Select List - Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, Rule 26 - The select list prepared under the Rules holds good for a period of one year from the date of selection. The High Court erred in holding that the select list does not lapse on expiry of one year. Held that the 1987 select list expired on 4.4.1988 and no rights survived thereafter. B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Mandamus can be issued only when the applicant establishes a legal right to performance of legal duty and the right was subsisting on the date of the petition. Since the select list had expired, the respondents had no subsisting right when they approached the High Court in 1990; the High Court could not direct recruitment contrary to Rule 26. Held that the impugned mandamus was unjustified. C) Service Law - Appointment - Illegal Past Practice - Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985, Rule 26 - Appointments made from expired select lists in the past were contrary to statutory rules. Such illegal actions of the appointing authority do not confer an enforceable right on an applicant under Article 226. The Court deprecated the practice but held it cannot sustain the High Court's direction. Held that past illegal appointments cannot validate the impugned mandamus. D) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition - Condonation of Delay and Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India, Article 136 - Delay of 480 days in preferring the special leave petition was condoned as sufficient cause was shown due to processing through official channels and the merits of the case. Availability of a special appeal to the Division Bench did not bar the Supreme Court from invoking jurisdiction under Article 136; it is a self-imposed restriction and not an ouster of jurisdiction. Held that delay was condoned and appeal was maintainable.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of respondents who were in the 1987 select list even after the expiry of that list, when Rule 26 of the Subordinate Officers Clerical Staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 provides that the list shall hold good for one year from the date of selection, and whether past illegal appointments and objections of delay and alternative remedy affected maintainability.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; impugned High Court judgments set aside; writ petitions filed by respondents dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Select list prepared under Recruitment Rules holds good for one year from date of selection
- mandamus requires subsisting legal right on date of petition
- illegal past appointments do not confer enforceable right
- delay condonation based on bureaucratic process and merits
- alternative remedy does not oust Article 136 jurisdiction
