ILLEGAL APPOINTMENT BARS EQUITABLE RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 142: SC:

The Supreme Court recently ruled that if an initial appointment is illegal, the candidate cannot seek equitable relief to retain or secure the position by invoking the special powers granted under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court underscored that the principles of fairness and legality must govern appointments, and an irregular or unlawful entry into service cannot be legitimized through judicial intervention.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan emphasized that when a candidate secures employment through a process that is either legally flawed or procedurally invalid, the Court is not empowered to invoke Article 142 to provide relief. The ruling reinforces the idea that judicial discretion cannot be exercised to regularize appointments made in contravention of established rules and regulations.

These observations were made while upholding a Kerala High Court judgment that supported the exclusion of an appellant from the post of "Boat Lascar" in the Kerala State Water Transport Department. The required qualification for the position was a Lascar’s License, whereas the appellant held a higher qualification—a Syrang’s License. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal had directed the Public Service Commission to remove ineligible candidates from the ranked list. Consequently, the appellant's appointment was revoked on the grounds that he possessed qualifications exceeding those prescribed.

The bench emphasized that the essential qualifications prescribed by the Special Rules and the Advertisement must be strictly followed. Simply because the post of Lascar serves as a feeder position for promotion to Syrang does not automatically qualify a holder of a Syrang's license for the role of Lascar.

The Court further elaborated on the unfairness of allowing a candidate with a higher qualification to apply for a position that specifically requires a lesser qualification. It noted that such an approach could undermine the recruitment process by creating an imbalance and disadvantaging candidates who meet the exact eligibility criteria set for the role. At this juncture, the candidate's counsel sought for the equitable relief under Article 142.

Rejecting this plea, the Court observed:

"This Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, held that if an appointment is illegal, it is non-est in the eye of law and rendering the appointment a nullity and principles of equity in a case of such nature would have no role to play; also that, sympathy should not be misplaced."

Dismissing the appeal, the Court said:

"We are of the considered opinion that the appellant having gained entry through a process which was not legal and valid, this is not a fit and proper case where this Court ought, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, to ignore the illegality and invalidity to come to his rescue."