Kailash Chander Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

16 November 1989

Case no.

0

Bench

Ramaswamy,K.

Facts

Kailash Chander Sharma was selected for the position of Assistant District Attorney by the Haryana Public Service Commission and was ranked 39th in the order of merit. The State had previously undertaken that any vacancies arising within one year would be filled by candidates selected by the Commission. However, despite the issuance of a fresh notification for 27 posts, Sharma was not appointed. He filed a writ petition alleging arbitrary denial of his right to appointment. The State contended that no vacancies had arisen within the stipulated time frame, thus justifying the non-appointment.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The petitioner argued that

• He was selected and ranked for the position, thus entitled to appointment.
• The State's failure to appoint him was arbitrary and illegal, violating the undertaking made to the Court.
• The issuance of a new notification for 27 posts indicated that vacancies had indeed arisen.

The Court addressed these arguments by highlighting the expectation that the State would honor its commitments and not evade compliance through technicalities. The Court found the petitioner’s claims credible, particularly in light of the subsequent recruitment notification.

Respondent Arguments

The respondent, the State of Haryana, argued that

• Only 37 posts were available for general candidates, and no vacancies arose before the one-year period expired.
• The petitioner could not be appointed as there were no available positions within the timeframe stipulated.

The Court critiqued this argument, stating that it was implausible for no vacancies to arise within a year, especially given the subsequent recruitment for 27 posts. The Court found the State's reliance on technicalities to avoid compliance with its earlier commitments to be unjustified.

Precedents considered

The judgment referenced the earlier case of
, which established the principle that the State must adhere to its commitments regarding appointments. The Court emphasized that the spirit of the law must be upheld, and technicalities should not be used to deny rightful appointments.

Legal principles

The Court considered the principle of legitimate expectation, which arises when a party has a reasonable expectation based on the representations made by the State. The Court also examined the obligation of the State to act fairly and justly in public service appointments, reinforcing that commitments made by the State must be honored.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The Court reasoned that the State's failure to appoint the petitioner was not only a breach of its undertaking but also indicative of a lack of good faith. The Court noted that vacancies typically arise due to retirements, resignations, or the creation of new posts, and it was unreasonable to assert that no vacancies occurred within the year. The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment based on the merit order established by the Public Service Commission.

Outcome

The Supreme Court ordered the State of Haryana to appoint Kailash Chander Sharma to one of the Assistant District Attorney posts, subject to his physical fitness. The Court emphasized that the appointment should be made in accordance with the rules governing such appointments.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to commitments made by the State in public service appointments. It reinforces the principle that technicalities should not be used to deny individuals their rightful entitlements, particularly when such entitlements are based on merit. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring that the State acts fairly and justly in its dealings with citizens.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)