If appointment is illegal, Candidate Cannot Claim Equitable Relief Under Article 142: Supreme Court

Introduction

In a recent judgment of a two – judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice Dipanker Datta and Justice Manmohan, the bench held that the candidate cannot seek equitable remedies to get the position by using the unique powers granted by Article 142 of the Constitution, the court ruled, if the first appointment was unlawful. In exercising its authority under Article 142A, the Court cannot assist a candidate who entered through an illegal or invalid method.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the candidate cannot use the exceptional powers granted by Article 142 of the Constitution to obtain the position if the first appointment was unlawful. The Court cannot assist a candidate in exercising its authority under Article 142 if the candidate obtained admission through an illegal and invalid method.

Analysis of the Judgment

The remarks were delivered by a bench made up of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan in recognition of a Kerala High Court ruling that maintained the appellant’s exclusion from the Kerala State Water Transport Department’s “Boat Lascar” position. Lascar’s license was the minimum requirement for the position. The appellant’s license was more qualified than Syrang’s. The Public Service Commission was instructed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal to remove ineligible applicants from the ranking list. Subsequently, the recommendation for the appellant’s appointment was revoked due to his exceeding the required credentials.

The bench noted that it must adhere to the fundamental requirements outlined in both the advertisement and the Special Rules. The mere fact that the Lascar position serves as a stepping stone to the Syrang position does not automatically qualify the bearer of a Syrang license for the Lascar position.

The Court also clarified why it was unfair to permit a candidate with a higher degree to apply for a position that required a lower degree. The candidate’s attorney requested equitable remedies under Article 142 at this point. The Court rejected this plea, noting:

“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.”

The Court dismissed the appeal, saying:

“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.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the principle that illegality cannot be the foundation for equitable relief, even under the broad powers granted by Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court firmly stated that if the initial appointment process is flawed or invalid, a candidate cannot invoke Article 142 to secure the position. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the established rules and requirements for appointments and cautions against misplacing sympathy when fundamental legal principles are violated. The judgment reinforces the notion that the extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 are not meant to circumvent established legal processes or legitimize irregular appointments.