- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
C.M Singh v. H.P Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Two writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the appointments of two candidates to the posts of Dean and Director (Research) in a University. The writ petitioners, both unsuccessful applicants, asserted that the selected candidates had not completed the minimum qualifying service on the last date for submission of applications. They also questioned the composition of the Selection Committee. The High Court upheld the first contention (ineligibility of the selected candidates) but nonetheless denied relief because the appointees had already served for nine years. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, the High Court refused to disturb the appointments. One of the writ petitioners, Dr. C.M. Singh, appealed to the Supreme Court, limiting his challenge to the post of Dean (the Director having since retired).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after holding that the selected candidates were not qualified on the date of application, the High Court was justified in denying relief solely because they had already served for nine years.
- Whether the High Court could rely on Rekha Chaturvedi to refuse relief when the Selection Committee had no power to relax qualifications and when the High Court lacks powers analogous to Article 142 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The selected candidates were ineligible because they had not completed the prescribed minimum period of service on the cut-off date.
- The Selection Committee was improperly constituted (though the High Court rejected this ground).
- Once ineligibility was established, the appointments had to be quashed notwithstanding the time elapsed.
Respondents’ Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents’ legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168; (1993) 25 ATC 234 | Permissibility of not disturbing appointments of ineligible candidates after a long lapse of time; exercise of discretionary/relaxation powers and the Supreme Court’s power under Article 142 to do complete justice. | The High Court relied on this case to refuse relief. The Supreme Court distinguished it, noting (a) the Selection Committee in the present case had no power to relax qualifications, and (b) the High Court lacks Article 142 powers; hence the High Court misapplied the precedent. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court correctly found the selected candidates ineligible but erred in refusing relief. It analysed Rekha Chaturvedi and highlighted two crucial distinctions:
- In Rekha Chaturvedi, the Selection Committee possessed and exercised discretionary power to relax qualifications, whereas no such power existed or was exercised here.
- The Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi invoked Article 142 to mould relief; the High Court does not enjoy that constitutional power.
Because the High Court lacked authority to withhold relief on equitable grounds alone, the Court held that the refusal was legally unsustainable. Nevertheless, quashing the appointments after nine years would be unduly harsh. Employing its own power under Article 142, the Supreme Court fashioned an equitable remedy: the appointments would remain undisturbed, but the appellant would rank senior to the selected candidates and receive all consequential, non-monetary benefits.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The civil appeal is allowed. The existing appointments are not quashed, but the appellant, Dr. C.M. Singh, shall stand senior to the incumbents, with all consequential (non-monetary) benefits. No order as to costs.
Implications: The decision reaffirms that High Courts cannot invoke considerations akin to Article 142 to deny relief once illegality is established. While the Supreme Court may craft equitable solutions under Article 142, inferior courts must grant appropriate relief strictly within their jurisdiction. The ruling does not create new precedent on merit selection processes but clarifies the limits of High Court discretion when faced with established illegality.
1. Under appeal is the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The order was passed on writ petitions filed by the same two writ petitioners, one in respect of the post of Dean of the respondent University and the other in respect of the post of Director (Research) in the same University. Both the writ petitioners were unsuccessful candidates for the posts. The High Court found that the writ petitioners had established their case but denied them relief on the ground that a period of nine years had elapsed after the appointment of the third respondents in each of the writ petitions to the posts.
2. The appeal is only by one of the two writ petitioners namely Dr C.M Singh, and the appeal is restricted to the post of Dean. This is because the third respondent in one of the writ petitions, who was appointed Director (Research), has now retired.
3. The challenge in the writ petitions was that on the last date for receipt of the applications the two third respondents had not completed the minimum period of service in the post concerned as required by the rules, and that, therefore, they were not eligible for being considered for appointment to the posts of Dean and Director (Research). It was also contended that the Selection Committee had not been properly constituted. The High Court found in favour of the writ petitioners on the first contention but not on the second. Having found in favour of the writ petitioners on the first contention, the High Court considered whether the appointment of the third respondents in each of the writ petitions was to be quashed “at this stage when a period of nine years had already elapsed”. It noted that no interim order had been passed in the writ petitions. It applied the judgment of this Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, (1993) 25 ATC 234 and held that the two third respondents having worked for nine years by then, should not be disturbed. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petitions.
4. The only question that we are required to consider in these appeals, therefore, is whether, having held that the two third respondents were not qualified to be appointed, the High Court could have declined relief to the writ petitioners only on the ground that the two third respondents had worked on the posts for which they were selected for nine years.
5. The High Court quoted in its judgment from the decision of this Court in the case of Rekha Chaturvedi 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, (1993) 25 ATC 234 but it would appear that it did not realise the import of these sentences:
“There is also no record before us to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits of the candidates and to relax minimum qualifications in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in it under the University Ordinance. If the considerations which weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid, it would result in injustice to those who have been selected.”
These sentences show that the Selection Committee there had discretionary powers vested in it under the University Ordinance to relax the requisite qualifications. There is nothing on record before us to show that the Selection Committee in the instant case had discretionary powers to relax the qualifications of the candidates, or that it had exercised them. Apart therefrom, the language employed by this Court in Rekha Chaturvedi case 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, (1993) 25 ATC 234 would suggest that this Court was employing the powers conferred on it under Article 142 to do complete justice. The High Court does not have such powers. Having found on merits in favour of the writ petitioners we do not think that the High Court was justified in declining any relief to them.
6. Logically, the consequence of what we have held must be that the appointments of the third respondents in each of the writ petitions must be quashed and that a Selection Committee should now be constituted to determine whether the appellant, who was qualified for the post of Dean, should be selected. To pass such an order now would be unduly harsh, particularly qua the third respondents in each of the writ petitions. We think that this is an appropriate case where our powers under Article 142 should be used to do complete justice. We think that complete justice will be done if the appointments of the third respondents in the two writ petitions to the posts in question are not disturbed and it is ordered that the appellant shall stand higher in seniority as compared to them. All consequential reliefs, other than monetary reliefs, shall be granted to the appellant.
7. The civil appeals are allowed in these terms. No order as to costs.
Alert