A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, consisting of Justices P. B. Banjanthri and B. PD. Singh, ruled that if someone’s appointment is not made according to the law, it doesn’t matter how long they have worked in the position. The Court upheld the decision of a Single Judge, who refused to provide relief to a Head Clerk (the Appellant) because he was appointed even though he wasn’t on the merit list at the time of selection.
Background of the Case
Two candidates applied for the position of Head Clerk. Since only one post was available, the advertisement stated that 10 candidates, in a 1:10 ratio, would be shortlisted for the interview.
The Appellant was ranked 11th on the merit list. Despite this, he was allowed to appear for the interview and was eventually appointed. He worked as a Head Clerk for five years.
Later, the other candidate challenged the Appellant’s appointment in court. A Single Judge ruled in favor of the challenge and canceled the Appellant’s appointment. The Appellant then filed a petition against this decision.
Arguments Presented
By the Appellant:
The Appellant’s lawyer argued that the job advertisement (dated May 19, 2012) stated that candidates already working in the department would get preference. The Appellant was already employed and had also worked as a Head Clerk for five years, so removing him would be unfair.
By the Other Candidate:
The other candidate’s lawyer argued that the Single Judge made the right decision because the other candidate was more qualified and deserved the position.
Court’s Decision
The Court looked into two main issues:
- Whether the Appellant was eligible to be called for the interview.
- Whether he had any legal right to the position.
The Court observed that only the top 10 candidates from the merit list were eligible for the interview since there was only one post. The Appellant, ranked 11th, was not qualified to attend the interview.
The advertisement mentioned giving preference to employees already working in the department, but the Court clarified that this applied only to candidates within the top 10 ranks. Since the Appellant wasn’t in the top 10, he couldn’t claim this benefit.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in M.S. Patil vs. Gulbarga University (2010), where a person’s appointment was canceled after 17 years because it was not done legally. The same principle was applied here, and the Court ruled that even though the Appellant worked for five years, his selection was unlawful. Equity or fairness cannot be used to justify an illegal appointment.
Conclusion
The Court agreed with the Single Judge and ruled that the Appellant’s removal was justified. His appointment violated the rules, so the petition was dismissed. This case emphasizes that appointments not made according to the rules cannot be upheld, no matter how long the person has worked.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
