Jitendra Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr

J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5803 OF 2007 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21418 of 2006] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 5810,5801,5802,5800,5804,5805,5807,5806 and 5808 OF 2007 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 4, 25, 40, 114, 1391, 359, 2621, 3662 and 1910 of 2007] S.B. SINHA, J :

The selection process was to take place in several stages, viz., holding of preliminary examination so as to prepare a short list of those who may be permitted to appear in the main examination followed by interview. 14,050 candidates including the appellants appeared in the preliminary examination, on 23.05.2004. 1541 candidates including the appellants were selected in the main examination. The written examination was conducted by the Commission in terms of Rule 9(1) of the 1930 Rules wherein 1,394 candidates appeared.

4. On or about 27.09.2004, the respondent State of Haryana sent requisition to the Commission for filling up of 19 vacancies in HCS (Executive Branch) by promotion of the in-service candidates in accordance with the 1930 Rules. Out of the said vacancies, 8 were to be filled up from amongst the category of the District Revenue Officer/ Tehsildars/ Naib Tehsildar (Register A-I), 6 vacancies from members of Class III Services (Register A-II) and 5 vacancies from the category of Block Development and Panchayat Officer (Register C).

7. General Elections of the Haryana Legislature were announced in on 17.12.2004. As the Model Code of Conduct became effective on and from 17.12.2004, the Election Commission in terms of a circular letter dated 27.12.2004 imposed a ban on issuance of appointment letters to the candidates selected by the Commission without its permission till the completion of the election process. However, on 30.12.2004, a select list of 102 candidates was published by the Commission recommending their appointment to the HCS (Executive Branch) and the Allied Services on the basis of the result of the examinations held by it. Admittedly, in view of the ban imposed by the Election Commission, no offer of appointment was issued. We may, however, notice that the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana by a letter addressed to the Election Commission asked for its permission to issue the appointment letters. There is nothing on record to show that the Election Commission responded thereto one way or the other.

13. Before we advert to the rival contentions raised by the parties, it may be placed on record that during pendency of these Special Leave Petitions, the State Government directed filling up of the 27 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police by promotion including 8 vacancies for which the appellants were selected by an order dated 21.02.2007. Similar orders of promotion were passed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on 12/13.03.2007 and 11 Excise and Taxation Officers on 3.04.2005.

31. It is, therefore, evident that whereas the selectee as such has no legal right, the superior court in exercise of its judicial review would not ordinarily direct issuance of any writ in absence of any pleading and proof of malafide or arbitrariness on its part. Each case, therefore, must be considered on its own merit.

33. The question which, therefore, is required to be posed is : can in the exigencies of the situation obtaining herein the State be said to have acted bonafide in not making any appointment?

37. It is, therefore, difficult for us to hold that the decision of the State was either mala fide or unreasonable or unfair or arbitrary. It has not been alleged that the State was acting for unauthorized purpose.

38. We are not oblivious of the constitutional scheme that the decisions taken by one government in public interest itself cannot be a ground for review thereof at the hands of the successor government. It is not the government which is in the seat of the power, matters in this behalf, but what matters is the public interest.

We direct the State Government to take all steps in this behalf. We would also request the Commission to render all cooperation to the authorities of the State Vigilance Bureau.

47. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.