Manish Kathuria and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
Background
The appellants had applied for appointment as Excise and Taxation Inspectors in Punjab but the Punjab and Haryana High Court held their claim was too delayed and refused them appointment. The appellants pointed out that they had earlier approached the Supreme Court itself seeking to join related proceedings, and it was the Supreme Court that had sent them back to pursue their remedy before the High Court, so the delay was not entirely their fault. When the matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal, the Court asked the Punjab government to confirm how many posts were actually still vacant.
Decision Breakdown
The State confirmed that against the 1999 recruitment notification there were still vacancies open, and in fact 76 vacancies existed overall across categories as per the State's own affidavit. Finding that vacancies existed and that a High Court-appointed Committee had already found the appellants otherwise qualified, the Supreme Court used its special "complete justice" power under Article 142 to direct the State to appoint the appellants as Excise and Taxation Inspectors within one month, without disturbing appointments already made and while applying the horizontal reservation principle. The Court clarified that the appellants would get seniority only from their actual date of joining (not retrospectively), that their computer-qualification affidavits could still be verified by the appointing authority, and, notably, that this relief was based on the peculiar facts of this case and was not to be treated as a precedent for other similar claims.
Lesson Learnt
Even when a claim looks "delayed," courts will look at who actually caused the delay: here, the Supreme Court's own earlier order had sent the appellants down a longer path. Courts can use special constitutional powers to give complete, fact-specific justice, but they may expressly limit such relief to the facts at hand so it isn't misused as a general precedent.