2020 INSC 0601
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3904­3905 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 20553­20554 of 2013)
PANKJESHWAR SHARMA AND OTHERS                  ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND 
OTHERS                                                                ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3907 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).34564 of 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3908­3909 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).1621­1622 of 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3910 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).27135 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3918 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).29803 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3920 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).29765 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3921­3922 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 27983­27984 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3930­3931 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).25906­25907 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3919 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).25929 of 2013)
1

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3923­3929 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).21645­21651 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3911­3917 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).21192­21198 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3932­3933 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).22708­22709 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).3934 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No(s).23227 of 2013)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
These present batch of appeals have been instituted by  the
unsuccessful   appellants   being   aggrieved   with   the   impugned
judgment dated 20 th 
March, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of
the   High   Court   of   Jammu   &   Kashmir   in   LPA   No.02/2011   and
LPA   No.04/2011   and   placing   reliance   on   its   judgment   dated
12 th
 March, 2013, cognate LPAs at a later stage were disposed of. 
2. The case has a chequered history and in order to appreciate
the   grievance   of   the   appellants,   it   will   be   necessary   to   glance
through   the   relevant   background   facts.   It   is   the   third   round   of
litigation arising out of the selection process held pursuant to an
advertisement   (No.Pers/Rectt/SI/EX­99/A­405)   dated   25 th
2

February, 1999 issued by the 2 nd
  respondent­Director General of
Police,   J&K   State   inviting   applications   for   the   post   of
Sub­Inspector of Police (Executive), the post which is included in
the Schedule appended to the J&K Police (Executive) Rules to be
filled   by   open   selection   in   terms   of   the   procedure   prescribed
under the Rules. 
3. Admittedly, it is neither provided in the scheme of Rules nor
mentioned   in   the   advertisement   notice   that   the   merit   list   of   the
candidates   based   on   the   written   and   viva­voce   test   is   to   be
separately   prepared   for   the   Provinces   of   Jammu   &   Kashmir.   It
reveals   from   the   record   that   the   last   selected   candidate   from
Jammu   Province   secured   56   marks   whereas,   in   Kashmir
Province,   the   last   selected   candidate   secured   50   marks.   The   2 nd
respondent under its own assumption published the select list of
total candidates of 252 Province­wise i.e. separately for Jammu &
Srinagar on 23 rd
 April, 2000. 
First round of litigation
4. The   unsuccessful   candidates   challenged   the   selection
process   by   filing   SWP   No.567/2000 1
  on   manifold   grounds   inter
alia   that   the   select   list   which   was   prepared   Province­wise   is   not
1   Surinder Kumar  Sharma vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.
3

legally   permissible   and   it   ought   to   have   been   prepared   as   one
select list for the whole of the State of Jammu & Kashmir as the
post   of   Sub­Inspector   is   a   State   cadre   post   and   therefore,   the
selection ought to have been made by treating the State as a unit
and not on the basis of residence of the candidates of Jammu &
Kashmir Provinces. 
5. The   writ   petitioners   succeeded   in   persuading   and   the
learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 16 th
  October,
2000 allowed the writ petitions with the direction that the select
list be prepared afresh of the State (J&K) and those who secured
50   or   more   marks   in   the   revised   select   list   be   considered   for
appointment without disturbing the appointments already made.
Against   the   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge,   State­respondent
filed   LPAs   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   and   the
Division Bench by its judgment dated 19 th
 August, 2002 modified
the order of the learned Single Judge with the direction to redraw
the   merit   list   State­wise   and   on   redrawing   the   merit   list,   if   the
candidates  who   have  already   been  selected/appointed  and  come
within   the   merit   zone,   they   should   not   be   disturbed   but   their
seniority   would   be   determined   in   accordance   with   their
4

placement in the order of merit which would be finally prepared.
The   above   order   of   the   Division   Bench   dated   19 th
  August,   2002
was   the   subject   matter   of   challenge   in   SLP(C)   No.24798/2002
which came to be dismissed by this Court under order dated 10 th
February, 2004. 
6. In   compliance   of   the   order   of   the   Division   Bench   dated
19 th
  August,   2002,   a   fresh   redrawn   State­wise   merit   list   dated
19 th
  May,   2004   came   to   be   notified   by   the   2 nd
  respondent
appointing   259   candidates   and   at   the   same   time,   cancelled   the
appointment  of   47   candidates   who   were   already   in   service   since
their   names   did   not   find   place   in   the   revised   merit   list   at   the
State level.
Second round of litigation
7. That   the   ousted   candidates   approached   the   learned   Single
Judge   of   the   High   Court   by   filing   a   writ   petition   challenging   the
redrawn   State­wise   merit   list   dated   19 th
  May,   2004   and   the
Learned   Single   Judge   by   its   order   dated   24 th
  May,   2004   issued
interim directions to allow such ousted candidates to continue in
service   until   the   next   date   of   hearing.   Meanwhile,   contempt
proceedings   being   COA(LPASW)   No.22/2004   were   also   initiated
5

against the 2 nd
 respondent for non­compliance of the order of the
Division   Bench   dated   19 th
  August,   2002   and   against   the
continuation   of   such   47   ousted   candidates   in   the   service.   The
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   by   its   order   dated   03 rd
December,   2004   disposed   of   the   contempt   petition   with   a
direction that “ those who did not come within the merit zone in the
re­drawn merit list cannot be allowed to continue and if any such
person   is   being   so   continued,   he   will   be   removed   as   already
directed by the order dated 19.05.2004.” 
8. That came to be challenged in  a  SLP  at  the instance  of  the
44 ousted candidates who have been directed to be removed from
service   by   the   Division   Bench   by   order   dated   03 rd
  December,
2004.   Various   interlocutory   applications   by   a   total   of   22
candidates   were   filed   for   their   impleadment   before   this   Court   in
the pending Special Leave Petition which was later converted into
Civil   Appeal   No.4758/2006.   This   Court   by   its   order   dated   10 th
May, 2007 without examining  the inter se dispute of the litigant
parties   and   taking   note   of   the   statement   made   by   the   learned
Advocate   General   of   the   State   on   its   face   value   that   all   the   47
ousted candidates who are likely  to loose their job as a result of
6

the order of the High Court dated 03 rd
 December, 2004 passed in
contempt petition and such of 22 impleaded candidates on filing
of   their   interlocutory   applications   before   this   Court,   will   be
accommodated   on   the   post   of   Sub­Inspector,   disposed   of   the
appeal with the following order:­
“Mr.   Altaf   H.   Nayak,   learned   Advocate   General  submits   that   all
the   47   petitioners   who   are   likely   to   go   out   of   job   as   a   result   of
the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   and   22
respondents   herein   will   be   accommodated   on   the   post   of   Sub­
Inspector.   He   further   submits   that   all   the   47   petitioners   who
were   selected   on   account   of   impugned   selection   and   are
presently  working  will be allowed to continue on their posts. In
view of this statement made by learned Advocate General, we do
not   think   we   need   to   determine   any   legal   question   involved   in
this matter. Consequently the Appeal stands disposed of in view
of the statement made by learned Advocate General.”
9. That  apart  from   the 47 ousted candidates who  were  earlier
in the order of merit but could not find place because of the merit
list   being   redrawn   in   purported   compliance   of   the   directions
made by the High Court in its order dated 19 th
 August, 2002, the
2 nd
  respondent   appointed   22   candidates   vide   its   orders   dated
23 rd
  February,   2008   and   11 th
  March,   2008.   It   reveals   from   the
record that these 22 candidates were much lower in the redrawn
merit   list   and   their   placement   in   the   order   of   merit   was   not
brought to the notice of this Court and that gave rise to a further
litigation. 
7

Third round of litigation
10. Some of the left out candidates who were higher in the order
of   merit   qua   these   22   candidates   who   were   appointed   by   the
2 nd
  respondent   vide   orders   dated   23 rd
  February,   2008   and
11 th
  March,   2008   under   the   so­called   alleged   compliance   of   the
order   of   this   Court   dated   10 th
  May,   2007,   approached   the   High
Court   by   filing   of   a   writ   petition   being   SWP   No.1084/2008   and
SWP No.1145/2008 on the premise that the writ petitioners were
denied their legitimate right of fair  consideration being  higher in
the   redrawn   merit   list   vis­a­viz,   the   22   persons   who   were
indisputedly   less   meritorious   still   appointed   and   action   of   the
State is in violation of the statutory rules and is also a denial of
equal  opportunity  in   seeking   appointment   on   the   envil  of   Article
14 of the Constitution. 
11. It reveals from the record that such of the 22 candidates of
whom  reference  has  been   made  in  the  order  of   this  Court  dated
10 th
 May, 2007, majority of them were lower in the order of merit
qua   the   candidates/writ   petitioners   who   were   contesting   their
right claiming equal and fair opportunity for seeking appointment
as per their placement in the order of redrawn merit. The learned
8

Single   Judge   by   order   dated   26 th
  August,   2010   allowed   the   writ
petitions   with   the   direction   that   any   appointment   made   on   the
basis of concession made by the learned Advocate General of the
State,   would   not   deprive   the   legitimate   claim   of   the   writ
petitioners   being   higher   in   the   order   of   merit   from   seeking
appointment   to   the   post   of   Sub­Inspector   qua   these   22
candidates   and   they   indeed   have   a   right   of   fair   consideration   in
seeking appointment based on their order of merit   that gave rise
to   filing   of   LPA   No.02/2011   and   cognate   appeals   before   the
Division  Bench  of  the High  Court  at  the instance of  the  persons
aggrieved. 
12. These   batch   of   appeals   were   disposed   of   by   the   Division
Bench  by  its judgment  dated 12 th
  March,  2013 setting   aside  the
judgment   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated   26 th
  August,   2010.
Relying   upon   the   said   judgment   of   the   Division   Bench   dated
12 th
  March,   2013,   other   cognate   appeals   were   at   a   later   stage
decided   by   the   Division   Bench   and   that   became   the   subject
matter of challenge in appeals before us.
13. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, learned Senior counsel for the
appellants   submits   that   the   order   of   this   Court   dated   10 th
  May,
9

2007   merely   recorded   the   concession   made   by   the   learned
Advocate   General   of   the   State   and   it   has   been   completely
misconstrued by the Division Bench of the High Court in holding
that as the order has been passed by this Court in exercise of its
power   under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   to   do   complete
justice, it is not open to question in the collateral proceedings. 
14. Learned   Senior   counsel   further   submits   that   by   appointing
such 22 persons as Sub­Inspectors who had been nowhere in the
redrawn  merit list  prepared pursuant  to  an  advertisement  dated
25 th
  February,   1999,   at   least   right   of   the   appellants   of   fair
consideration   in   seeking   appointment   who   admittedly   placed
higher   in   the   order   of   redrawn   merit   list   could   not   have   been
divested   in   taking   defence   to   the   order   of   this   Court   dated   10 th
May,   2007   and   such   appointments   made   by   the   respondents   of
22   persons   as   Sub­Inspectors   is   not   only   in   violation   of   the
statutory   recruitment   rules   but   also   in   violation   of   Article   14   of
the Constitution are unsustainable and dehors the rules. 
15. Learned   Senior   counsel   further   submits   that   there   is   no
delay   or   latches   which   could   be   attributed   to   the   present
appellants   as   few   of   them   earlier   approached   the   Court   at   the
10

initial stage when the selection process came to be questioned in
the   year   2000   but   they   were   primarily   aggrieved   when   22
candidates   were   offered   appointment   by   the   State­respondent
under its orders dated  23 rd
 February, 2008 and 11 th
 March, 2008
as   they   are   nowhere   in   the   order   of   redrawn   merit   list   prepared
by   the   State­respondent   in   compliance   of   the   judgment   of   the
Division Bench of the High Court dated 19 th
  August, 2002 in the
first   round   of   litigation   and   in   the   given   circumstances,   they
cannot be said to be the fence sitters as observed by the Division
Bench in the impugned judgment. 
16. Learned   Senior   counsel   for   the   appellants   has   made   a
further feeble attempt to justify that there are 26 appellants who
are   before   this   Court   assailing   the   impugned   judgment   of   the
Division Bench of the High Court in the instant proceedings and
10   of   the   appellants   are   presently   serving   as   a   Head
Constables/Constables   in   Jammu   &   Kashmir   Police   and   9   are
serving   in   various   Government   departments   and   only   7   of   the
appellants are such who are employed in private sector and what
being contended by the appellants if not acceded to by this Court
and permitting the persons who are lower in merit to continue as
11

Sub­Inspectors,   will   be   a   heartburn   and   mental   agony   to   them
and   at   least   the   on­going   injustice   with   them   ought   not   to   be
permitted to continue. He furthermore submits that there will be
no financial implications to the respondents as the appellants are
not   claiming   any   back   wages   and   there   still   exists   to   their
information   more   than   100   vacant   posts   of   Sub­Inspectors   in
Jammu   &   Kashmir   and   the   present   appellants   can   also   be
accommodated   without   disturbing   these         22   candidates   who
were appointed as Sub­Inspectors pursuant to an advertisement
dated 25 th
 February, 1999.
17. The appellant in SLP(C) No.34564 of 2014 was selected in a
subsequent   selection   for   the   post   of   Sub­Inspector   pursuant   to
an   advertisement   issued   in   February,   2001   and   was   appointed
vide order dated 01 st
  February, 2002 and on acceptance of what
being   prayed   by   him,   he   will   be   entitled   for   seniority   and
consequential   benefits   from   23 rd
  April,   2000   and   according   to
him,   that   may   not   disturb   even   the   appointments   which   are
made   by   the   respondent   of   47   plus   22   persons   in   respect   of
whom grievance has been raised by the appellants in the instant
proceedings.
12

18. Per contra, while supporting the impugned judgment of the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   learned   counsel   for   the
respondents   submits   that   47   ousted   candidates   whose   services
were terminated after the redrawn merit list was published, were
initially  allowed to  continue  on  the  strength  of  the interim  order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and during
pendency of the litigation, such 47 ousted candidates have been
continuously   working   in   the   department   right   from   their
appointment  in  the year  2000  and the  department  had  incurred
huge   expenses   on   their   training   courses.   Besides   this,   the   said
47   candidates   have   taken   part   in   anti­insurgency   operations   in
the State and as such there were apprehension of threat to their
life.   The   State   accordingly   wanted   to   retain   them   and   when   the
matter   was   listed   before   this   Court   in   the   earlier   round   of
litigation on    10 th
 May, 2007, the difficulties were pointed out to
this   Court   and   it   was   conceded   that   in   case   the   appointment   of
such     47 candidates is saved, there were 22 vacancies available
and   such   22   applicants   were   not   only   became   a   party   but   have
been   litigating   since   the   year   2000   and   in   the   given
circumstances,   it   was   considered   appropriate   that   in   order   to
settle the issue one for all and to sum up the on­going  litigation
13

pending   for   the   last   eight   years   and   subsequent   selections   were
also   held   for   the   post   of   Sub­Inspector   pursuant   to   an
advertisement   notified   in   February,   2001,   22   such   candidates
may   be   accommodated   along   with   47   ousted   candidates   who
were   allowed   to   continue   since   the   year   2000.   In   the   given
situation,   the   statement   was   made   by   the   learned   Advocate
General of the State under the bonafide impression that it will at
least   give   quietus   to   the   on­going   battle   between   the   selected
candidates inter se pending since the year 1999. 
19. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   it   is   not   the   case   of
the appellants that they are the senior most 22 candidates in the
order   of   redrawn   merit   list,   who   have   been   left   over   from
consideration   for   appointment   and   also   informed   that   there   are
good number  of  candidates who are higher   in the  order   of merit
qua   the   present   appellants   in   the   redrawn   select   list   which   was
prepared   pursuant   to   a   direction   of   the   High   Court   in   the   first
round   of   litigation   and   the   candidates   with   whom   the   present
appellants   had   a   lis   have   been   appointed   in   the   year   2008   and
have   served   for   more   than   12   years   and   further   submits   that
what   has   been   contended   by   the   appellants   if   accepted   by   this
14

Court   the   appointments   are   to   be   made   strictly   in   the   order   of
redrawn   merit   list,   against   22   vacancies   which   are   in   dispute,
majority   of   appellants   may   not   find   their   name   in   queue   in
seeking   appointment   as   they   are   not   the   senior   most   22
candidates   in   the   order   of   redrawn   merit   deprived   from
consideration   for   appointment   and   submits   that   in   the   peculiar
facts   and   circumstances,   what   has   been   observed   by   the   High
Court in the impugned judgment needs no further interference. 
20. We   have   heard   the   counsel   for   the   parties   and   with   their
assistance perused the material on record.
21. Unfortunately,   the   advertisement   to   the   post   of   Sub­
Inspector   which   was   published   by   the   2 nd
  respondent   way   back
on   25 th
  February,   1999   with   the   condition   that   one   has   not
crossed   the   age   of   28   years   as   on   01 st
  January,   1999,   after   21
years   down   the   line,   is   still   has   not   been   finalised   and   we   are
pondering   over   the   inter   se   dispute   of   the   candidates   who   had
participated in the selection process must have crossed the age of
43­47 years under the belief that they may still be considered for
appointment. 
15

22. In the first round of litigation, when the controversy initially
arose   as   to   whether   the   merit   list   Province­wise   in   Jammu   &
Kashmir   could   have   been   prepared   by   the   respondent   and   how
far it can held to be in conformity with the scheme of rules, while
examining the controversy, the learned Single Judge categorically
observed that all those candidates who have secured less than 50
marks   have   no   right   to   contend   that   they   have   been   arbitrarily
ignored   on   the   basis   of   Province­wise   selection   and   the   claim   of
those   candidates   who   have   obtained   50   or   more   than   50   marks
was left open to be considered by the learned Single Judge in the
proceedings initially in the year 2000. The further dispute which
was   revisited/reviewed/re­examined   by   the   Court   at   the   later
stage   in   the   second   round   of   litigation   primarily   confined   to   the
candidates   who   obtained   50   or   more   than   50   marks   under   the
zone of consideration for being considered for appointment on the
post   of   Sub­Inspector   pursuant   to   an   advertisement   dated
25 th
 February, 1999.
23. The   indistputed   facts   which   manifest   from   the   record   as
noticed above is that the advertisement came to be notified by the
2 nd
  respondent   dated   25 th
  February,   1999   holding   selections   for
16

the   post   of   Sub­Inspector   and   the   present   batch   of   appeals   are
preferred by the appellants/participants being higher in the order
of merit qua those 22 candidates who were appointed by the 2 nd
respondent vide orders 23 rd
 February, 2008 and 11 th
 March, 2008
on   the   basis   of   the   concession   made   by   the   learned   Advocate
General   of   the  State  recorded  under   order   dated  10 th
  May,  2007
of   this   Court,   with   the   claim   that   they   have   been   deprived   from
fair consideration in seeking appointment.
24.   It   is   a   settled   principle   of   service   jurisprudence   and   has
been   consistently   followed   by   this   Court   that   the   rules   of
recruitment   to   various   services   under   the   State   or   to   a   class   of
posts under the State, the State is bound to follow the same and
to   have   the   selection   of   the   candidates   to   be   made   as   per   the
scheme   of   recruitment   rules   and   appointments   shall   be   made
accordingly.   At   the   same   time,   all   the   efforts   shall   be   made   for
strict   adherence   to   the   procedure   prescribed   under   the
recruitment   rules.   On   the   contrary,   if   any   appointments   are
made   bypassing   the   recruitment   procedure   known   to   law,   will
resulted   in   violation   of   Article   14   and   16   of   the   Constitution.
This Court in   State of U.P. and Others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and
17

Others 2
 and later  in  Arup Das and Others vs. State of Assam and
Others 3
 considered the question of filling up of vacancies over and
above   the   number   of   vacancies   advertised   and   held   that   the
filling   up   of   vacancies   over   and   above   the   number   of   vacancies
advertised   would   be   violative   of   fundamental   rights   guaranteed
under   Article   14   and   16   of   the   Constitution   and   the   selectees
could   not   claim   appointments   as   a   matter   of   right.   This   Court
further   held   that   even   if   in   some   cases   appointments   had   been
made erroneously or by mistake, that did not confer any right of
appointment  to   another   person  as   Article   14   of   the   Constitution
does   not   envisage   negative   equality   and   if   the   State   or   its
authority had committed a mistake at any given stage, it cannot
be   forced   to   perpetuate   the   said   mistake   under   the   writ
jurisdiction   of   the   High   Court   under   Article   226   of   the
Constitution.   In   a   situation   where   the   posts   in   excess   of   those
advertised   had   been   filled   up   in   extraordinary   circumstances,
instead   of   invalidating   the   excess   appointments,   the   relief   could
be   moulded   in   such   a   manner   so   as   to   strike   a   just   balance
keeping   the   interest   of   the   State   and   the   interest   of   the   person
2   State of U.P. and Others vs. Rajkumar Sharma and Others  (2006) 3 SCC 330
3   Arup Das and Others vs. State of Assam and Others  (2012) 5 SCC 559
18

seeking  public employment depends upon the facts of each case
for which no set standard can be laid down. 
25. Initially   when   the   selections   were   challenged   in   the   year
2000, it was in reference to the policy decision taken by the State
Government   in   preparing   two   separate   merit   lists   of   Jammu   &
Kashmir   Provinces   arising   from   a   common   advertisement   dated
25 th
  February,   1999   and   it   was   indeed   in   clear   contravention   to
the   scheme   of   rules   and   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High
Court categorically observed that as the key of marks for Jammu
& Kashmir Provinces are different and 50 marks being the lower
among   the   two   Provinces   secured   by   the   last   candidate,   the
limited controversy  examined by  the learned Single Judge of the
High   Court   was   in   the   four   corners   confining   it   to   the
persons/candidates   who   obtained   50   or   more   marks   in   the
selection   process   and   still   deprived   from   consideration   for
appointment. 
26. To   make   this   fact   further   clear,   it   was   observed   by   the
learned   Single   Judge   in   Surinder   Kumar   Sharma   vs.   State   of
Jammu   and   Kashmir   and   Others 4
  decided   on   16 th
  October,   2000
4   SWP No.576/2000 titled  Surinder Kumar Sharma vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
19

i.e. the first round of litigation. The controversy center around is
reproduced hereunder:­ 
“ Therefore, all those candidates who have received less than 50 marks have no
right to contend that they have been wrongly ignored on the basis of Province
wise selection. The claims of those candidates who have obtained 50 or more
than 50 marks would be considered in the light of this judgment.”
27. At the outset, those who secured less than 50 marks, their
claim   of   consideration   for   appointment   was   eliminated   by   the
learned   Single   Judge   even   in   the   first   instance   when   the
controversy   initially   raised   by   the   candidates   affected   at   a   very
threshold   after   the   select   list   was   notified   by   the   2 nd
  respondent
in  the year   2000 and if any  person  was  aggrieved on account  of
his   non­selection,   secured   50   or   more   than   50   marks   being
deprived from fair consideration in seeking appointment, cause of
action was accrued to him at such given point of time in the first
place, when examined and decided by the learned Single Judge of
the   High   Court   by   its   judgment   dated   16 th
  October,   2000   and
directed the State authorities to consider all such candidates for
appointment who have secured 50 or more than 50 marks if left
out   from   being   considered   for   appointment   as   their   right   of   fair
consideration   is   being   seriously   jeopardized   which   was   although
modified by the Division Bench at the later stage by its judgment
20

dated   19 th
  August,   2002   as   a   consequence,   47   candidates   were
going   to   be   affected   in   the   first   round   of   litigation.   The   later
controversy   remained   confined   to   examine   the   fate   of   those   47
ousted   candidates   who   could   be   over   and   above   the   candidates
who are to be appointed in the redrawn merit list of the State of
Jammu   &   Kashmir,   to   be   adjusted   despite   being   appointed   and
working for sufficient time deserve indulgence of the Court.
28. That further litigation was raised at the behest of 47 ousted
candidates,   it   has   come   on   record   that   they   were   allowed   to
continue   in   the   first   instance   under   the   interim   order   as   they
were   already   working   for   quite   some   time   and   finally   their
controversy   reached   to   this   Court   in   the   second   round   of
litigation and since much water has flown in the Ganges by that
time   and   the   alleged   47   ousted   candidates   were   working   right
from   the   year   2000   and   the   department   had   incurred   huge
expenses   on   their   training   courses   and   they   had   taken   part   in
anti­insurgency   operations   in   the   State   and   the   State   was
concerned   about   them   as   there   were   apprehension   of   threat   to
their   life,   under   these   circumstances,   the   State   has   shown   its
intention to retain them in service.  
21

29. It reveals  from   the  record  that  the  Government   intended  to
give quietus to the on­going litigation and in the second round of
litigation in this Court as there were 22 interlocutory applications
filed   by   the   applicants   in   the   pending   proceedings,   who   were
claiming their appointment, under the bonafide belief that certain
vacancies are available with the State and if such 22 candidates
who have filed their applications for impleadment in the pending
proceedings in this Court if taken care of, atleast there will be a
quietus   to   the   on­going   litigation   and   that   appears   to   be   the
reason to which the learned Advocate General of the State made
a statement before this Court that not only 47 ousted candidates
who have been appointed and served for the last 7 years, such 22
candidates   may   also   be   accommodated   on   the   post   of   Sub­
Inspector and after recording the statement made by the learned
Advocate   General   of   the   State,   there   left   no   legal   issue   to   be
examined   in   the   pending   civil   appeal   and   on   the   basis   of   the
alleged   concession   made   by   the   learned   Advocate   General,   this
Court by order dated 10 th
 May, 2007 disposed of the appeal.
30. It   is   true   that   ordinarily   in   the   open   selection,
appointments   are   to   be   made   strictly   in   the   order   of   merit   in
22

terms   of   the   procedure   prescribed   under   the   relevant   statutory
recruitment   rules   or   in   absence   under   the   guidelines   if
prescribed, still if appointments are made for exceptional reasons
deviating   from   the   merit   list   which   ordinarily   is   not   permissible
but   in   unforeseen   exigencies,   if   the   State   with   a   bonafide
intention to give quietus to the on­going litigation pending for the
last   eight   years   extended   its   concession   to   adjust   such   22
candidates   who   are   under   litigation   for   long   time   with   no
malafides   or   bias   being   imputed   to   the   State   action   could   have
been   possible   only   if   those   who   are   litigating   and   agitating   their
grievance reached upto this Court cannot be held to be faulted.
31. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior counsel for the appellants
has pointed out certain instances and it is also reflected from the
written submission that such of the candidates who have secured
50 or more marks have also been deprived from consideration in
seeking   appointment   but   the   statement   of   fact   does   not   hold
factually correct for the reason that in the first round of litigation,
the   learned   Single   Judge   categorically   observed   that  the   dispute
remain confined to such of the  candidates  who have secured 50
or   more   than   50   marks   in   the   selection   process   held   by   the
23

respondent   pursuant   to   an   advertisement   dated   25 th
  February,
1999.   In   the   given   circumstances,   if   the   candidates   who   have
secured   50   or   more   marks   and   still   left   from   consideration   for
appointment,   their   right   accrued   to   make   their   claim   when   the
judgment   was   initially   pronounced   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
dated   16 th
  October,   2000   although   modified   by   the   Division
Bench in the first round of litigation by judgment and order dated
19 th
  August,   2002   but   none   of   the   so­called
appellants/candidates   who   have   secured   50   or   more   than   50
marks   ever   made   their   claim   in   seeking   appointment   at   a   later
stage  and  what  is  reflected from   the  record  that   there  were  only
47   ousted   candidates   who   secured   50   or   more   than   50   marks
and if the present appellants who have secured 50 or more marks
as claimed by them were not there within 47 ousted candidates,
no   grievance   at   a   belated   stage   could   be   raised   and   open   to   be
entertained and deserves rejection. 
32. The submission further made by learned Senior counsel for
the appellants that the finding recorded by the Division Bench of
the   High   Court   that   the   appointment   of   these   22   candidates
against whom there was a grievance raised by the appellants, are
24

being   appointed   by   this   Court   in   exercise   of   its   power   under
Article   142   of   the   Constitution  for   doing   complete   justice,   is   not
reflected   from   the   order   of   this   Court   dated   10 th
  May,   2007.   We
find   substance   in   what   being   urged   and   hold   that   the   order   of
this Court dated 10 th
 May, 2007 was not under Article 142 of the
Constitution and it was clearly reflected from the order itself that
it was passed on the basis of the concession made by the learned
Advocate   General   of   the   State   and   recorded   by   this   Court   in   its
order dated 10 th
 May, 2007. 
33. Further submission made by the learned Senior counsel for
the   appellants   that   they   are   higher   in   the   order   of   merit   qua
these   22   candidates   who   were   appointed   by   the   2 nd
  respondent
taking shelter of the order of this Court dated 10 th
  May, 2007 is
not   legally   sustainable   and   violative   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution.   The   submission   in   the   first   blush   appears   to   be
attractive   but   it   lacks   foundation   for   the   reason   that   the
appointments   in   the   ordinary   course   are   to   be   made   strictly   in
the   order   of   merit   in   terms   of   the   select   list   prepared   by   the
competent   authority   as   contemplated   under   the   relevant
statutory   recruitment   rules   and   any   appointment   in
25

contravention   indeed   is   in   violation   of   Article   14   of   the
Constitution   with   a   proviso   that   if   any   appointments   are   made
deviating from the merit list drawn by the competent authority in
exceptional   cases   as   being   reflected   in   the   instant   case   where
there   was   on­going   litigation   and   subsequent   selection   was   also
held   to   give   quietus   to   the   on­going   litigation,   still   on   principle
cannot   be   approved   by   this   Court,   are   irregular   appointments
and cannot be held to be illegal as claimed by the appellants. 
34. It   is   also   not   the   case   of   the   appellants   that   they   are
amongst   22   candidates   in   the   order   of   merit   published   by   the
2 nd
  respondent   awaiting   appointment   in   reference   to   an
advertisement dated 25 th
  February, 1999 and if their submission
is   accepted   at   the   face   value   as   prayed   for,   atleast   the   present
appellants may not get a march over 22 candidates waiting in the
order   of   merit   who   in   the   ordinary   course   could   claim
appointment   to   the   post   of   Sub­Inspector   and   the   action   of   the
State in extending its concession which has been recorded under
the   order   of   this   Court   dated   10 th
  May,   2007   is   indeed   the
mistake  being   committed, still it  cannot  be  forced by  the  person
as alleged to be aggrieved to perpetuate the said mistake.
26

 35. This   Court   in   Union   of   India   and   Another   vs.   Kartick
Chandra Mondal and Others 5
  observed that if something is being
done   or   acted   upon   erroneously   that   cannot   become   the
foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is
made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be made the basis
of   further   appointment   and   erroneous   decision   cannot   be
permitted   to   perpetuate   further   error   to   the   detriment   of   the
general   welfare   of  the   public   or   a   considerable  section.   This  has
been the consistent approach of this Court. 
36. In  Arup Das and Others vs. State of Assam and Others 6
, this
Court   observed   that   “ even   if   in   some   cases   appointments   had
been made by mistake or wrongly, that did not confer any right of
appointment   to   another   person,   as   Article   14   of   the   Constitution
does   not   envisage   negative   equality   and   if   the   State   had
committed   a   mistake,   it   cannot   be   forced   to   perpetuate   the   said
mistake.” 
37. It   is   indisputed   that   by   the   time   we   are   called   upon   to
decide   the   matter,   the   so­called   22   candidates   against   whom
there   is   a   lis   raised   by   the   present   appellants,   had   completed
5   Union of India and Another vs. Kartick Chandra Mondal and Others  (2010) 2 SCC 422
6   Arup Das and Others vs. State of Assam and Others  (2012) 5 SCC 559
27

almost   more   than   12   years   of   service   and   thus   having   rich
experience   in   the   field     and   the   subsequent   selection   has   also
been   held   of   the   post   of     Sub­Inspector   pursuant   to   an
advertisement   issued   in   February,   2001   and   the   concession
which was recorded of the learned Advocate General of the State
by this Court in its order dated 10 th
 May, 2007 at a given point of
time also appears to be bonafide, to give quietus to the on­going
litigation pending in Courts for sufficient long time and no other
litigation  at  that  given  point  of  time  was pending  in  the  court of
law,   in the given situation,   this Court is not inclined to disturb
the   appointment   of   those   22   candidates   which   has   been
questioned by  the appellants/candidates in the  present  batch of
appeals. 
38. I n   Gujarat   State   Dy.   Executive   Engineers'   Assn.   vs.   State   of
Gujarat 7
,   this   Court   recorded   a   finding   that   appointments   given
under the “wait list” were not in accordance with law. It, however,
refused   to   set   aside   such   appointments   in   view   of   length   of
service (five years and more).
7   Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn.   vs .   State of Gujarat   (1994) Supp 2 SCC 591
28

39. In   Buddhi Nath Chaudhary   vs.   Abahi Kumar 8
, this Court has
observed   that   appointments   were   held   to   be   improper.   But   this
Court   did   not   disturb   the   appointments   on   the   ground   that   the
incumbents   had   worked   for   several   years   and   had   gained   good
experience.   “We   have   extended   equitable   considerations   to   such
selected   candidates   who   have   worked   on   the   post   for   a   long
period”.
40. We   are   also   of   the   view   that   the   appointments   of   22
candidates   made   by   the   2 nd
  respondent   vide   orders   dated
23 rd
 February, 2008 and 11 th
 March, 2008 which has given rise to
a   further   litigation   are   irregular   appointments   and   not   in
conformity   to   the   recruitment   rules,   still   what   being   prayed   by
the   appellants   if   accepted   by   this  Court   that   will   perpetuate   the
illegality which has been committed by the State­respondent and
negative   equality   cannot   be   claimed   to   perpetuate   further
illegality under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 
41. To   conclude,   we   do   not   approve   the   reasoning   of   the   High
Court that appointments of these 22 candidates have been made
under  Article   142   of   the   Constitution   to   do   complete   justice   but
after   the   matter   has   been   dilated   by   us,   we   are   not   inclined   to
8   Buddhi Nath Chaudhary   vs .   Abahi Kumar   (2001) 3 SCC 328
29

disturb the appointment of these 22 candidates  against  whom  a
grievance has been raised by the appellants in the present batch
of appeals.
42. Consequently, we find no substance in the present appeals
and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
43. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………….………………………….J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
……………..…………………………J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
……………………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 03, 2020
30