This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the statutory rules applicable at the time of an advertisement govern the selection process. The Supreme Court held that applying a different set of service rules, which were not referenced in the advertisement, to invalidate a duly made appointment to an aided educational institution is illegal. The Court emphasized that the legality of an appointment must be tested against the rules that initiated the selection.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from a 2006 advertisement issued by an aided college to fill a Lecturer post in History, governed by the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001, which prescribed no age limit. The appellant, Jyotsna Devi, was selected as the most meritorious candidate. Although she was overage by 2 years and 7 months according to the unrelated Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003, the state government condoned this and approved her appointment. She served continuously for 18 years. However, a rival candidate, Respondent No. 5, challenged her appointment, arguing it violated the age limit under the 2003 Rules. The Writ Court initially upheld the appellant’s appointment, but a Division Bench of the High Court later allowed the appeal, ruling her ineligible as the age condonation was retrospective. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court’s orders, reinstating the appellant by ruling that the 2003 Rules did not apply to the selection process for an aided post that was initiated under the specific 2001 Rules.
Procedural History:
The procedural journey began when Respondent No. 5 filed Writ Petition No. 1707 of 2007 before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the appellant’s appointment. A Learned Single Judge dismissed this petition on 30.03.2010, upholding the appointment. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 5 filed Writ Appeal No. 262 of 2011, which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 24.02.2012, setting aside the appellant’s appointment. The appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 16230 of 2012) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 28.08.2017 but granted liberty to file a review before the High Court. Subsequently, the appellant filed Review Petition No. 175 of 2017, which was dismissed by the High Court on 24.05.2023. This final dismissal led to the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court, which allowed them and set aside the orders of the Division Bench and the Review Court.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules: Bank’s Illegal Mortgage Voids Multi-Crore Property Auction
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the entire selection process was initiated under the specific Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001, which contained no prescribed age limit. It held that applying Rule 19(iv) of the altogether different Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003, to invalidate the appellant’s appointment was illegal, as these rules were not applicable to the aided institution at the time of the advertisement and selection. The Court emphasized that the government’s condonation of the appellant’s overage was a valid exercise of discretion under the extant 2001 Rules. It concluded that the High Court erred in using an inapplicable rule to set aside the appointment of a meritorious candidate who had been selected and had served continuously for 18 years based on the governing rules of the selection.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the Division Bench and the Review Court of the Gauhati High Court. It reinstated the appellant, Jyotsna Devi, to her position as Lecturer in History, directing the respondents to reinstate her within four weeks. The Court ordered that her service be treated as continuous, meaning the period of break following her termination would not count against her, though she was not granted any back wages. Crucially, to balance the equities, the Court also protected the employment of Respondent No. 5, who had been appointed in her stead, directing that their service shall not be interfered with.