Court Upholds Decision on Public Employment Selections

In a recent legal case, the High Court issued a decision regarding public employment selections. The court’s analysis focused on the irregularities in the selection process and the reinstatement of Writ Petitioners. This blog post delves into the legal intricacies of the case and the court’s rationale behind its decision.


  • A High-Level Committee was constituted by the State Government to examine irregularities in the selection process.
  • 42 persons filed Writ Petitions being aggrieved by the termination of their services.
  • The Writ Petitions filed by the 42 persons whose services were terminated were allowed by a judgment dated 12.08.2016.
  • The final result was published and 382 candidates were selected against 384 vacancies as candidates belonging to SC Quota for the two posts of Sergeant were not available.
  • The Writ Petitioners cannot be held responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in their selection process.
  • There is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Writ Petitioners.
  • Intervenors secured more marks than the Writ Petitioners but are not considered similarly situated.
  • Writ Petitioners to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates.
  • High Court refused to grant relief to intervenors due to lack of vacancies for their appointments.
  • High Court directed reinstatement of Writ Petitioners who were beneficiaries of a select list prepared irregularly.
  • Appointments of 42 candidates were cancelled due to irregular select list preparation.
  • Writ Petitioners’ appointments were termed irregular but were directed to be treated as fresh appointments.
  • Intervenors’ plea for appointment based on higher merit was rejected by the Division Bench.
  • No fraud or misrepresentation by the Appellants resulted in the setting aside of their termination.

Also Read: Legal Analysis on Seniority Fixation in Contempt Petitions


  • An advertisement was issued on 13.07.2017 for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspectors.
  • Selections were finalized filling 3019 posts on 27.06.2018.
  • State Government contended that there were no vacancies for the Writ Petitioners initially appointed.
  • The State Government argued that only 120 persons were more meritorious than the Writ Petitioners and could be appointed in existing vacancies.
  • 39 out of 42 Writ Petitioners were reinstated due to orders in Contempt proceedings.
  • Vacancies after 2008 were due to police force restructuring.
  • Main contention is that the appellants are more meritorious than the Writ Petitioners.
  • High Court erred in not directing the appointment of intervenors who were higher in merit after directing reinstatement of Writ Petitioners.
  • 550 posts are still vacant even after finalizing the selections.
  • Only 384 posts were advertised for Sub-Inspectors, and intervenors have no right to seek appointment.
  • Irregularities in the selection process led to the Writ Petitioners being replaced by others who scored higher.
  • Selections were initially made based on preference to 3 categories of posts advertised.
  • It was later realized that the select list should have been prepared based on merit first, then preference.
  • Authorities revised the select list which led to cancellation of Writ Petitioners’ appointments.
  • Writ Petitioners had completed training and worked for a considerable period before their appointments were canceled.

Also Read: Interpretation of Section 80-IA Deductions


  • Intervenors claim for appointment beyond advertised posts is not valid.
  • Relief granted to Writ Petitioners because they were already appointed and served the state, not because of merit.
  • Intervenors cannot seek the same relief as Writ Petitioners as they are not similarly situated.
  • Appointment of those with lesser merit over those with more marks violates Constitution’s Articles 14 and 16.
  • 43 persons were appointed after cancellation of Writ Petitioners’ appointments.
  • Appellants in a previous case had training and served for more than 3 years, which influenced the decision to reinstate them.
  • Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted based on their similarities to the Appellants in the previous case.
  • Selections for public employment should be merit-based.
  • Writ Petitioners have been reinstated after intervention by the court.
  • The High Court did not grant relief to the intervenors due to a lack of vacancies.
  • Although intervenors showed there were vacancies for their appointment, the court declined to direct their appointment as the selections in question were from a 2008 advertisement.
  • Selections for Sub-Inspectors had been held subsequently, with a large number of appointments made.
  • The 2008 advertisement had 384 posts advertised, and the intervenors do not have a right to appointment beyond those advertised.

Also Read: Judicial Analysis on Selection Process


  • Respondents cannot claim any parity with the Writ Petitioners.
  • The judgment of the High Court is upheld.
  • The Appeals are dismissed.


Case Number: C.A. No.-000429-000430 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *