Appointment Process Found To Be Executed Through Fraudulent Means Must Be Redone Completely - Supreme Court
A Supreme Court Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna partly allowed an Appeal regarding the appointment to the post of a Lecturer. Noting that "the original writ petitioner is also seeking appointment pursuant to the very selection process/recruitment process which is found to be fraudulent and suffers from manipulation of record.", the Supreme Court ordered that the selection process must be redone completely.
The Original Writ Petitioner had applied for the post of an Urdu teacher in a College and he was appointed in 2002. In 2007, an advertisement was published calling for filling up posts of Urdu Lecturers in the same College. The Original Writ Petitioner also submitted his application. Interviews were conducted and the Management informed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education that in respect of Urdu subject, it was resolved to appoint a highly knowledgeable subject expert and to seek his opinion before making any appointment and accordingly Urdu Teacher's appointment was postponed. In 2009, the Management informed the Original Writ Petitioner that the Appellant had been appointed as Urdu Lecturer. The Management sought approval for her appointment from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education sought the Management's explanation as to how the Appellant could have been appointed without seeking the opinion of a subject expert. However, in 2010, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education approved the appointment of the Appellant herein.
The Original Writ Petition filed a Petition before the Single Judge. The Single Judge quashed the appointment of the Appellant and issued further directions to the Management to forward necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the Original Writ Petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject. Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Division Bench, which dismissed the Appeal. The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the Single Judge had found that the entire selection process was vitiated by fraud and there was a manipulation of the record and no resolution, on the basis of which the Appellant was appointed was in existence and there was an interpolation.
The Supreme Court opined that the Single Judge ought to have passed the order for a fresh selection.
The Court held that the Appeal stood in part. To that end, it said that "The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench and that of the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Urdu Lecturer is hereby confirmed. However, that part of the direction/order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single directed to forward necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject, which is not interfered with by the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside."
The Court ordered that a fresh selection process must be initiated and completed preferably within a period of 3 months and partly allowed the appea.