Holding

The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration, holding that the Government could, by policy decision, appoint from the waiting list and that the High Court had failed to properly consider the existence of vacancies and the effect of Rule 57.

Summary

The State of Jammu & Kashmir advertised for two lecturer posts in its Medical Education Department. Four departmental employees had earlier been given ad‑hoc promotions, pending approval by the State Public Service Commission (PSC), which was granted shortly after the advertisement. The PSC prepared a select list and a waiting list; three candidates from the waiting list were appointed before the one‑year validity of the list (Rule 57) expired. The appointments were challenged by Dr. Sanjeev Kumar and Dr. Arun Gandotra, who had been found ineligible at the time of advertisement. The High Court initially dismissed the challenge but a Division Bench later held the appointments illegal, deeming them made for "future" vacancies. The Supreme Court held that the Government could, by policy, appoint from the waiting list when there were existing or anticipated vacancies, that Rule 57 must be considered, and that the High Court had not examined key questions. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration without expressing a view on the merits.

Issues considered

The validity of appointments made from the waiting list when the advertised vacancies were fewer than the total appointments.
Whether the State can consider anticipated or future vacancies for appointments under the recruitment rules.
The applicability and interpretation of Rule 57 of the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1979.
Whether the writ petitioners had locus standi to challenge the selection process.

Subjects

Service lawRecruitmentVacanciesAnticipated vacanciesPolicy decisionRule 57Public Service CommissionAppointment from waiting listLocus standi

Judgment

A STATE OF J & KAND ORS.
v.
SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 24, 2005

B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
j ! ..

Service Law :

Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education Gazetted Service Recruitment
C Rules, 1979; Rule 57:

Appointment ofdoctors by direct recruitment-Gran/ ofad hoc promotion
to departmental employees approved by State Public Service Commissio~
Panel/select /~st <!rawn.by the Commission in pursuance ofdirect recruitment-
Appointments frqm list/panel-Challenge t~Allowed by High Court holding
D that the appointments were m"ade from future va~ancieslbeyond the notified
I
vacancies-On appeal, Held: Commission recommended for promotion for
departmental employees within a very short period from the date of the
-- /
advertisement for direct recruitment-Thus, there existed vacancies-High
Co.urt did not examine the validity of select list/panel beyond one year-File
E record containing policy decision with regard to the appointments in question
not produced by the Department in spite of specific directions by the High
Court-Hence, the case is remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh.

Appellant-State of Jammu & Kashmir issued an advertisement for
appointment of lecturers/doctors in the Medical Education Department.
F In the meantime, four departmental employees were granted ad hoc
promotion. Later, State Public Service Commission (Commission)
accorded its approval for the promotion. Pursuant to the advertisement
for the direct recruitment, the Commission prepared a select list and
waiting list. In pursuance thereof,. three persons were appointed. Their
appointment was challenged by the respondents. The challenge was held
G to be without substance by the High Court. However, in the Letters Patent
Appeal, Division Bench of the High Court held that the appointments were
beyond the notified vacancies as indicated in the advertisement for the
appointment but it was in respect of future _vacancies. Hence the present
appeals.
H 400
}
!

STATE v. SANJEEV KUMAR 401
It was contended by the appellant-State that the approach of the A
High Court was erroneous both factually and legally; that it failed to notice
that because of the officiating promotions given· to four persons, there
existed four vacancies, merely because they were not notified, that did not
make the situation different; and that since petitioners were not eligible
for appointment, they did not have locus standi to challenge the selection. B
...... Respondents submitted that the State did not make requisition for
appointment for six posts but it had categorically advertised for
appointment for two posts; that ·had the Commission considered the four
vacancies to be existing vacancies, it would have made list of six candidates
and would not have drawn up "waiting list; and that though the writ C
petitioners were found to be ineligible on the date of advertisement, they
were eligible on the date the selectlist was drawn up.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1. The Government can by. a policy decision appoint D
persons from the waiting list; and that while issuing advertisement the
Government could have taken into account the likely vacancies. [406-BI

Prem Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors., (1996]
4 SCC 319 and Virender S. Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.,
[19991 3 sec 696, relied on. E
1.2. ln fact, within a very short period from the. date of the
advertisement, Public Service. Commission approved the recommendations
for promotions for four persons. Therefore, it cannot be prima facie said
that there were no existing vacancies or likely vacancies. Moreover, the
effect of Rule 57 has not been considered by the Division Bench of the F
High Court on the strong reasoning that though Single Judge of the High
Court had referred to Rules, the specific rule was not indicated, though
such a rule exists. It was not the case of the writ petitioners in the Appeal
before the Division Bench that no such rule exists. The effect of the rule
was required to be considered by the High Court. (406-D-EJ G
1.3. The question as to why the Commission prepared select list of
only two persons, when it could have drawn up list of six persons, while
drawing up of the select list, needs to be considered by the High Court.
Though a reference has been made by the High Court to the Commission's
stand in its judgment, the details are not indicated. Another question that H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A needs to be considered is if there were six vacancies (two notified. and four
existing), whether the eligibility to be reckoned with reference to the date
as indicated in the advertisement for appointment or from the date select
list was prepared. 1406-F-GI

2.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remitted
B to the High Court for fresh consideration. P11rties shall be permitted to
file further affidavits and documents in support of their respective stand.
Policy decision files shall be produced by the State as and when required
by the Bench hearing the appeal. 1407-C)

C 2.2. It is clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits,
which shall be considered by the High Court uninfluenced by any
observation made by it earlier in the impugned judgment. 1407-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1396-1397
of 2005.
I
D From the Judgment and Order dated 25.8.2003 of the Jammu and
Kashmir High Court in LP.A. (SW) Nos. 168 and 303 of 2002.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 1411-1412 of 2005.
E
Anis Suhrawardy for the appellant in C.A. ~o. 1396-1397/2005.

P.P. Rao, P.Ramesh Kumar, Achal Sethi, Ms.Apama Bhat and Mushtaq
Ahmad for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 1411-1412/2005 and Respondent Nos.
F 2-4 in C.A. Nos. 1396-97/2005.

A. Mariarputham and Ms.Aruna Mathur for M/s. Arputhan and Aruna
& Co. for the Respondents. ·

The Judgment of the. Court was delivered by

G ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

These appeals are directed against the judgment rendered by a Division
Bench of the Jammu and K~shmir High Court holding that the appointment
of three doctors, namely, Dr. Mu~ffar Jan, Dr. Ghulam Rasool Wani and Dr.
H Ghanshyam Saini-the appell<,tnts in the civil appeals correspon,ding to SLP
STATE v. SANJEEV KUMAR [PASAYAT, J.] 403
(C) Nos.21954-21955 of2003 to be illegal. They are also private respondents A
in the appeals filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and Jammu and
Kashmir Public Service Commission (in short the 'PSC'). ·

Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows :

An advertisement was issued on 12.10.1998 by the State inviting B
applications for appointment as lectures in Paediatrics in the Medical Education
Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Before that date four persons
had been granted ad-hoc promotion as Assistant Professors. Such promotion
.was subject to approval ~y the PSC. On 23.l0.i998 PSC accorded approval
to the promotion of the four lecturers as Assistant Professors.
c
In response to the advertisement, several persons had· applied. Dr.
Sanjeev Kumar and Dr. Arun Gandotra (the writ petitioners before the High
Court) had also applied. Since they were not found eligible for appointment
they were not called for interview. Questioning such action writ petitions
were filed by them. Pursuant to interim orders by the High Court they were D
allowed to participate in the selection process; but were not found eligible.
The writ petitions filed by them were dismissed. There was no further
challenge. Subsequently, a select list was prepared by the PSC indicating that ·
one Dr. Nazir Ahmad Parray was placed at No. l while the result in respect
of second post was with held. A waiting list was prepared where names of
Dr. Muzaffar Jan, Dr. Ghulam Rasool Wani and Dr. Ghanshyam Saini were E
listed. The select list was prepared on 25.10.1.999. According to the operative
Rules i.e. Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education Gazetted Service
Recruitment Rules, 1979 (in short the 'Rules') period of validity of the list
is one year which may be extended by another six months on special request
of the Government if the request for such extension is made before the expiry F
of the validity of the panel. The relevant Rule is Rule 57. Before the expiry
of the one year, period Dr. Muzaffar Jan, Dr. Ghulam Rasool Wani and Dr.
Ghanshyam Saini were appointed. Questioning their appointments, Dr. Sanjeev
Kumar and Dr. Arun Gandotra filed writ petitions before the Jammu and
Kashmir High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the application holding
that the appointments were made in accordance with the Rules, and there was G
nothing infinn and in any event the writ petitioners who were found ineligible
initially and their challenge to the selection was held to be without substance
cannot raise any dispute. Letters Patent Appeals were filed before the High
Court. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court
allowed the appeal holding that the appointments were beyond the notified H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A vacancies as per advertisement and this was not really a case .of existing
vacancies which were not notified. On the contrary, it was in respect of
future vacancies. It was held that though learned Single Judge· had referred
to certain Rule as regards preparation of select list, the specific Rule was not
noted. The writ petitioners had locus standi to question the selection as they
B could have come within the zone of consideration had these posts been notified.
Though reference was made to certain policy decisions to justify the
appointments the relevant files were not produced in spite of specific directions.

In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the High Court rejected the State's stand 'that ·the policy decision was
C taken to appoint the selected persons, in view of the piquant situations, the
relevant files could not be produced. The files would clearly indicate that to
meet the requirements as stated by the Medical Couneil of India (in short the
'MCI') appointment from the waiting list was imperative. The approach of
the High Court was erroneous both factually and legally. It failed to notice
that because of the officiatiflg promotions' given to four persons, there were
D four vacancies existing. Merely because they were not notified, that did not t
make the situation different. It was not really a case of future vacancies but
anticipated and existing vacancies: Since it is permissible, no faults should
have been found by the High Court. The writ petitioners did not possess the
requisite qualifications and, therefore, they did not have locus standi to
E challenge the selection. ·

In response, learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents in the
present appeals) submitted that the State had not made any requisition for six
posts. It had categorically advertised for two posts. If in reality the PSC had
considered the four· vacancies to be existing vacancies; it would have made
F list of six candidates and would not have drawn up waiting list. Though the
writ petitioners were found to be ineligible on the date of advertisement, they
were eligible on· the date the select list was drawn up. The advertisement
indicated the eligibility criteria to be as on 26.10.1998.

The legal position so far as the case of existing vacancies, notified
G vacancies and future vacancies has been set out by this Court in several
decisions. In Prem Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and
Ors., [1996] 4 SCC 319, in paragraphs 25 and 26 it was laid down as follows:

"25. From the above discussion of the case-law it becomes clear that
the selection process by way of requisition and advertisement can be
'H started for clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies but not
STATE v. SANJEEV KUMAR [PASAYAT. J.] 405
for future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement are for a A
certain number of posts only the State cannot make more appointments
than the number of posts advertised, even though it might have
prepared a select list of more candidates. The State can deviate from
the advertisement and make appointments on posts falling vacant
thereafter in exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent situation B
and that too by taking a policy decision in that behalf. Even whet)
filling up of more posts than advertised is challenged the court may
not, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, invalidate the excess
appointments and may mould the relief in such a manner as to strike
a just balance between the interest of the State and the interest of
persons seeking public employment. What relief should be granted in C
such cases would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.

26. In the present case, as against the 62 advertised posts the Board
made appointments on 138 posts. The selection process was started
for 62 clear vacancies and at that time anticipated vacancies were not D
taken into account. Therefore, strictly speaking, the Board was npt
justified in making more than 62 appointments pursuant to the
advertisement published on 2-11-199 l and the selection process which
followed thereafter. But as the Board could have taken into account
not only the actual vacancies but also vacancies which were likely to
arise because of retirement etc. by the time the selection process was E
completed .it would not be just and equitable to invalidate all the
appointments made on posts in excess of 62. However, the
.. appointments which were made against future vacancies - in this case
on posts which were newly created - must be regarded as invalid. As
stated earlier, after the selection process had started 13 posts had F
become vacant because of retirement and 12 because of deaths. The
vacancies which were likely to arise as a result of retirement could
have been reasonably anticipated by the Board. The Board through
oversight had not taken them into consideration whil~ a requisition
was made for filling up 62 posts. Even with respect to the appointments
made against vacancies which arose because of deaths, a lenient view G
can be taken and on consideration of expediency and equity they
need not be quashed. Therefore, in view of the special facts and
circumstances of this case we do not think it proper to invalidate the
appointments made on those 25 additional posts. But the appointments
made by the Board on posts beyond 87 are held invalid. Though the H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R.

A High Court was right in the view it has taken, we modify its order to
the aforesaid extent. These appeals are allowed accordingly. No order
as to costs."

As is clearly spelt from the. quoted portion, the G.overnment can by a
policy decision appoint people from the waiting list. It has been laid down
B that on the facts of Prem Singh's case (supra) while issuing advertisement the
Government could have taken into account likely vacancies. The principle in
Prem Singh's case (supra) was followed in Virender S. Hooda and Ors. v.
State of Haryana and Anr., (1999] 3 SCC 696.

It appears from the records that prior to the date of advertisement cases
C of four persons who had been promoted on officiating basis were receiving
consideration of the PSC. In fact, within a very short period from the date of
the advertisement, PSC approved the recommendations for promotions for
four persons. Therefore, it cannot be prima facie said that there were no
existing vacancies or likely vacancies. Additionally, the effect of Rule 57 has
D not been considered by the Division Bench on the strong reasoning that
though learned Single Judge had referred to a Rule, the specific Rule was not
indicated. It is not in dispute that such a Rule exists. It was not the case of
the writ petitioners in the Appeal before the Divisi_on Bench that no such
Rule exists. The effect of the Rule was required-to be considered by the High
Court.
E
But several other questions also need to be considered. One is why t~e
PSC prepared select list of only two persons, when it could ~ave drawn up
list of six persons, while drawing up of the select list on 25. IO. I 999 after the
interview on 14.9.1999. Though a reference has been made by the High
F Co.urt to the PSC's stand in its judgment, the details are not indicated.

Further the question that needs to be considered is if there were six
vacancies (two notified and four existing), whether the eligibility was to be
reckoned with reference to 26.10.1998 or from the date select list was prepared
on 25.10.1999. This has to be considered in the background of the dismissal
G of the earlier writ petitions filed by Dr. Arun Gandotra and Dr. Sanjeev
Kumar. There is no definite finding recorded by the Division Bench in this
regard.

Additionally we find that though the State was asked to produce the
files, it appears that for reasons beyond its control the files containing the
H alleged policy decision could not be produced for perusal of the Bench hearing
J STATE v. SANJEEV KUMAR [PASAYT, L] 407

the appeals. A
In the aforesaid background, we remit the matter to the High Court for
fresh consideration. Parties shall be permitted to file further affidavits and
documents in support of their respective stand. As undertaken by the learned
counsel for the State, files shall be produced as and when required by the
Bench hearing the appeal. B
The existing position pursuant to interim order of this court shall continue
till disposal of the matter afresh by the High Court. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any opinion on the merits, which shall be considered by
the High Court uninfluenced by any observation made by it earlier in the C
impugned judgment.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.