PANKJESHWAR SHARMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS

PANKJESHWAR SHARMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS

Appointments must ordinarily follow the merit list and recruitment rules and departures are irregular and violative of Article 14; however, where irregular appointments have been acted upon for a long period and to disturb them would perpetuate further disruption or injustice, the court may decline to set aside those appointments—on the facts the Court would not disturb the 22 appointees who had served for over 12 years and whose accommodation arose from a bonafide concession to give quietus to long-pending litigation; the Division Bench's view that the Supreme Court acted under Article 142 is not approved.

Parties
Appellants: Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others; Respondents: State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Division Bench Judgment of High Court; Final Disposal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Irregular Appointments, Negative Equality, Merit Based Recruitment, Article 14 Challenges, Article 142 and Exercise of Judicial Power
Service Law Constitutional Law Irregular Appointments Negative Equality Merit Based Recruitment Article 14 Challenges Article 142 and Exercise of Judicial Power

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others

Appellants

State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Division Bench Judgment of High Court; Final Disposal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appointments of 22 candidates made after this Court's order dated 10 May 2007 were legally sustainable or violative of Article 14
  2. 2 Whether appointments made deviating from the merit list prepared under recruitment rules can be perpetuated by court order
  3. 3 Whether this Court's order dated 10 May 2007 was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Appointments must ordinarily follow the merit list and recruitment rules and departures are irregular and violative of Article 14; however, where irregular appointments have been acted upon for a long period and to disturb them would perpetuate further disruption or injustice, the court may decline to set aside those appointments—on the facts the Court would not disturb the 22 appointees who had served for over 12 years and whose accommodation arose from a bonafide concession to give quietus to long-pending litigation; the Division Bench's view that the Supreme Court acted under Article 142 is not approved.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed
  • No costs