Sandeep Kamboj vs Union Of India And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitutioon of India is setting aside of advertisement dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure P-1) and appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Assistant Store Keeper.

The petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.12.2012 applied for the post of Assistant Store Keeper. The respondent conducted written test whhich was followed by interview and viva-voce. Respondent No.5 came to be selected. The petitioner claims thatt he was more meritorious, thus, he should havee been selected.

Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate subbmits that respondent No.5 was appointed in 2013 and since then he is workinng with respondent-organization.

The petition needs to be dismissed in view off five Judge Bench judgment of Supreme Courrt in Sivanandan C.T. and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 994.

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate does not dispute the fact that respondent No.5 is working with responndent-organization since 2013, however, he submits that he approached this Court in 2014, thus, his claim should be adjuudicated on merits.

A five Judge bench of Supremme Court in Sivanandan C.T. (Supra) thouggh held that appointment of judicial officers by Kerala High Court was badd in law, however, did not disturb appointment on the ground that already appointed officers have already served for nearly six years and gained experieence. It would deprive the Statee and its citizens the benefit of experienced juudicial officers. The relevant extrracts of the judgment read as:

“60. The following are our conclusions in view of the above discussions:

(i) The principles of good administration require that the decisions of public authorities must withstand the test of consistency, trransparency, and predictability to avoid being termed ass arbitrary and violative of Article 14;

(ii) An individual who claims a benefit or entitlement based on the docttrine of substantive legitimate expectation has to establish the following : (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and that (ii) the denial of the legitimate expectaation led to a violation of Article 14;

(iii) A public authority must objectively demonstrate by placing relevant matterial before the court that its decision was in the public interest to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation;;

(iv) The decision of the High Court of Kerala to apply a minimum cut-off to the viva voce examination is contrary to Rule 2(c)(iiii) of the 1961 Rules.

(v) The High Court's decision to apply the minimum cut-off marks for the viva voce frustrates the substantive legitimate expectation of the petitioners. The decision is arbitrary and violativee of Article 14.

(vi) In terms of relief, we hold that it would be contrary to the public interest to direct the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service after the lapse of more than six years. Candidates who have been selected nearly six years ago cannot be unseated. They were all qualified annd have been serving the district judiciary of the statee. Unseating them at this stage would be contrary to public interest. To induct the petitioners would be to bring in new candidates in preference to those whho are holding judicial office for a length of time. To deprrive the state and its citizens of the benefit of these experiienced judicial officers at a senior position would not be in public interest.”

Inn the case in hand, the petitionner participated in the selection process which was initiated in 2012 and respondent No.5 was selected in 2013. He sincce then is working with responndent-organization without any hindrance.

Inn the wake of afore-cited juddgment of Supreme Court in Sivanandan C.T. (Supra), this Court does not find it appropriate to disturb appointment of respondent No.5 at this belatedd stage.

Dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shaall stand disposed of.