Case: A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt.Of N.C.T. Of Delhi

Tribunal or before this Court to place any valid reason for ignoring the appellant and launching a fresh process of selection.12. It is well settled that every State action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution and basic to the rule of law, the system which governs us (vide Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., 1991(1) SCC 212.13. Learned Additional Solicitor General referred to the judgment of this Court in Madan Lal and others v. State of J & K and others, 1995(3) SCC 486 and placed reliance on Paragraph 23 of the judgment at Page 502. That ruling has no relevance in the present case. The advertisement was for applications to the post of Munsif. According to the advertisement, there were 11 vacancies to be filled up and the requisition to the Public Service Commission was to select 11 persons for filling up the said seven vacancies. While sending the list of selected candidates, the Public Service Commission sent a list containing more names than 11. That was obviously with a view to fill up the vacancies, if any of the 11 candidates according to their merit did not join, from among the 11 candidates in the waiting list according to their merit. The Bench held that once the 11 candidates who were selected joined the post, the list got exhausted and the waiting list could not be used for any purpose thereafter. That principle will not apply in the present case in view of the facts already set out by us.14. In R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 230 the question arose with regard to selection of candidates to the post of Judicial Member, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The selection was made by a Selection Board consisting of a sitting Judge of this Court. The Selection Board prepared a panel of selected candidates which included the name of the appellant before this Court and sent its recommendations. The candidates who were at numbers 1 and 2 in the panel did not accept the appointment. The Bench observed that though a person on the select panel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected has a right to be considered for appointment and at the same time the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make an appointment on its whims. The Court said that when a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit position, ordinarily there i s no justification to ignore him for appointment and that there has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. However, on the facts of the case, the Bench did not give any relief to the appellant as he was only No. 4 and no information was available about the stand of the person who was at No. 3 of the select panel. While reversing the findings given by the Central Administrative Tribunal to the extent indicated in the judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeal but directed the Government to pay cost of the proceedings to the appellant which was quantified at Rs. 30,000/-. 15. In Virender S. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1999(3) SCC 696. The Haryana Service Commission advertised 12 posts of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). On completion of selection final list was published. Some of the selected candidates did not join and the appellant that they should have been considered against the vacancies so arising, depending upon the ranking obtained by the appellants in the competitive examination. They relied on Government Circulars dated 22.3.1957 and 26.5.1972 according to which the vacancies which arose within six months from receipt of recommendations of the Commission, should be filled up from the waiting list maintained by the Commission. The writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court in the view that the administrative instructions contained in the Circulars could not be enforced. Reversing the decision of the High Court, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the Government ought to have considered the case of the appellants as per the rank obtained by them and the appellants had to be appointed if they came within the range of selection. The Bench pointed out that when those vacancies arose within a period of six months from the date of previous selection, the Government circulars were attracted and the view of the High Court that the vacancies arose after selection process commenced had no relevance and they are contrary to the declared policy of the Government. The Bench observed that the view taken by the High Court that the administrative instructions could not be enforced by the appellants would be looking at the matter from a narrow and wrong angle. The Bench said, "when a policy has been declared by the State as to the manner of filling up the post and that policy is declared in terms of rules and instructions issued to the Public Service Commission from time to time and so long as these instructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondents ought to follow the same". The ruling will apply on all fours in the present case.16. In the circumstances we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal and directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal as he is the only other person in the panel of names selected by the Select Committee and as nothing has been brought out against him by the Government.17. On the facts, we find that all the conditions set out in the office memorandum issued by the Central Government dated 14.5.1987 are fulfilled in the present case and the rejection of the appellants name without any reason therefor is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. In our opinion, this is a case of conferment of power together with a discretion which goes with it to enable proper exercise of the power and therefore it is coupled with a duty to shun arbitrariness in its exercise and to promote the object for which the power is conferred which undoubtedly is public interest and not individual or private gain, whim or caprice of any individual. Even if it is to be said, that the instructions contained in the Offence Memorandum dated 14.5.1987 are discretionary and not mandatory, such discretion is coupled with the duty to act in a manner which will promote the object for which the power is conferred and also satisfy the mandatory requirement of the Statute. It is not therefore open to the Government to ignore the panel which was already approved and accepted by it and resort to a fresh selection process without giving any proper reason for resorting to the same. It is not the case of the Government at any stage that the appellant is not fit to occupy the post. No attempt was made before the Tribunal or before this Court to place any valid reason for ignoring the appellant and launching a fresh process of selection.12. It is well settled that every State action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution and basic to the rule of law, the system which governs us (vide Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., 1991(1) SCC 212.13. Learned Additional Solicitor General referred to the judgment of this Court in Madan Lal and others v. State of J & K and others, 1995(3) SCC 486 and placed reliance on Paragraph 23 of the judgment at Page 502. That ruling has no relevance in the present case. The advertisement was for applications to the post of Munsif. According to the advertisement, there were 11 vacancies to be filled up and the requisition to the Public Service Commission was to select 11 persons for filling up the said seven vacancies. While sending the list of selected candidates, the Public Service Commission sent a list containing more names than 11. That was obviously with a view to fill up the vacancies, if any of the 11 candidates according to their merit did not join, from among the 11 candidates in the waiting list according to their merit. The Bench held that once the 11 candidates who were selected joined the post, the list got exhausted and the waiting list could not be used for any purpose thereafter. That principle will not apply in the present case in view of the facts already set out by us.14. In R.S. Mittal v. Union of India, 1995 Supp.(2) SCC 230 the question arose with regard to selection of candidates to the post of Judicial Member,In Virender S. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1999(3) SCC 696. The Haryana Service Commission advertised 12 posts of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch). On completion of selection final list was published. Some of the selected candidates did not join and the appellant that they should have been considered against the vacancies so arising, depending upon the ranking obtained by the appellants in the competitive examination. They relied on Government Circulars dated 22.3.1957 and 26.5.1972 according to which the vacancies which arose within six months from receipt of recommendations of the Commission, should be filled up from the waiting list maintained by the Commission. The writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court in the view that the administrative instructions contained in the Circulars could not be enforced. Reversing the decision of the High Court, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the Government ought to have considered the case of the appellants as per the rank obtained by them and the appellants had to be appointed if they came within the range of selection. The Bench pointed out that when those vacancies arose within a period of six months from the date of previous selection, the Government circulars were attracted and the view of the High Court that the vacancies arose after selection process commenced had no relevance and they are contrary to the declared policy of the Government. The Bench observed that the view taken by the High Court that the administrative instructions could not be enforced by the appellants would be looking at the matter from a narrow and wrong angle. The Bench said, "when a policy has been declared by the State as to the manner of filling up the post and that policy is declared in terms of rules and instructions issued to the Public Service Commission from time to time and so long as these instructions are not contrary to the rules, the respondents ought to follow the same". The ruling will apply on all fours in the present case.16. In the circumstances we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal and directing the respondents to appoint the appellant as Member,Appellate Tribunal as he is the only other person in the panel of names selected by the Select Committee and as nothing has been brought out against him by the Government.17. On the facts, we find that all the conditions set out in the office memorandum issued by the Central Government dated 14.5.1987 are fulfilled in the present case and the rejection of the appellants name without any reason therefor is arbitrary and unconstitutional.