P. K. JAISWAL versus MS. DEBI MUKHERJEE AND ORS.

P. K. JAISWAL versus MS. DEBI MUKHERJEE AND ORS.

If the Government decides to amend recruitment rules to provide for promotion and communicates withdrawal of requisition to the Commission before any advertisement is issued, there is no interference with any vested right to selection; the Commission should not proceed with selection and the action to do so after Government communication is hasty and unjustified. The appellant cannot claim vested rights, and the Tribunal's omission regarding creation of new layers has no bearing on the Government's right to pause the process.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. P. K. Jaiswal; Respondent: Ms. Debi Mukherjee
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 January 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal (special Leave) From Central Administrative Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Recruitment, Promotion, Direct Recruitment, Administrative Tribunals, Union Public Service Commission
Service Law Recruitment Promotion Direct Recruitment Administrative Tribunals Union Public Service Commission

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. P. K. Jaiswal

Appellant

Ms. Debi Mukherjee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal (special Leave) From Central Administrative Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Government can withdraw requisition for recruitment before the selection process by the Union Public Service Commission commences.
  2. 2 Whether the Commission can proceed with selection after a Government communication to halt the process pending rule amendment for promotion.

Ratio Decidendi

If the Government decides to amend recruitment rules to provide for promotion and communicates withdrawal of requisition to the Commission before any advertisement is issued, there is no interference with any vested right to selection; the Commission should not proceed with selection and the action to do so after Government communication is hasty and unjustified. The appellant cannot claim vested rights, and the Tribunal's omission regarding creation of new layers has no bearing on the Government's right to pause the process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs