Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the non-appointment of the appellant, Sudesh Kumar Goyal, to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service despite his successful qualification in the selection process. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had issued a notification on 18.05.2007 for the recruitment of 22 officers, with 14 positions allocated for general category candidates. The appellant secured the 14th position in the merit list but was not appointed as the first 13 candidates were selected, and one candidate later resigned. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the 14th position should not remain vacant and that he should be appointed against the vacancy created by the resignation. The respondents contended that the appointments were justified as they followed the rules and absorbed Fast Track Court judges into the vacancies. The court analyzed the legal principles surrounding judicial appointments, emphasizing that candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed merely by qualifying. It was held that the State must act in good faith and not arbitrarily, but it is not obligated to fill all vacancies. The court found that the respondents acted fairly and logically, and the argument regarding the adjustment of the appellant against the vacancy caused by resignation was dismissed as it required a new selection process. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that it would be unjust to keep the selection process open after 16 years.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Appointments - Indefeasible Right - Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 - The appellant claimed entitlement to appointment based on merit despite being ranked 14th, arguing that the vacancy should not remain unfilled. The court held that while candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, the State must not act arbitrarily in filling vacancies (Paras 9-10). B) Administrative Law - Filling of Vacancies - Justification for Non-Appointment - Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 - The court found that the respondents justified their decision not to appoint the appellant as all vacancies were filled according to the rules, and the absorption of Fast Track Court judges was legitimate (Paras 12-17). C) Administrative Law - Fresh Vacancies - Requirement for Advertisement - Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 - The court ruled that a fresh vacancy arising from resignation could not be filled without a new advertisement and selection process, affirming the High Court's decision (Paras 18-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had a right to be appointed to the higher judicial service despite being placed 14th in the merit list.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and stating that the respondents acted fairly and logically in their appointments. The court held that the appellant did not have an indefeasible right to be appointed and that the process followed was in accordance with the law.
Law Points
- Judicial appointments
- Direct recruitment
- Indefeasible right
- Arbitrary action
- Merit list
