Pankjeshwar Sharma and Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others
Background
This case arose from a 1999 police recruitment drive for Sub-Inspector posts in Jammu & Kashmir that spiralled into more than two decades of litigation across three separate rounds. After initial selection disputes over province-wise merit lists, 47 candidates who had lost their jobs due to a redrawn merit list were allowed by the Supreme Court in 2007 to keep their posts (based on a concession by the state's Advocate General), and 22 additional candidates were later appointed to "settle" the long-running dispute. A further batch of candidates, who claimed to rank higher in merit than those 22, then challenged those 22 appointments as illegal and violative of their right to fair consideration, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that while the appointment of the 22 candidates was indeed irregular and not strictly in conformity with the recruitment rules, it would not disturb their appointments because they had already served for more than 12 years, the original appointment was made in good faith to bring finality to prolonged litigation, and there was no proven bias or mala fide intent behind it. The Court also clarified that the 2007 order had not been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution (the Supreme Court's special power to do "complete justice"), as the High Court had mistakenly believed, but was based purely on a concession by the state's counsel. Relying on past precedent, the Court held that even an erroneous or irregular appointment by the State cannot be used by another person to claim a "right" to a similar irregular appointment: Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit "negative equality," meaning one wrong cannot be used to justify correcting it with another wrong. The appeals were accordingly dismissed with no costs.
Lesson Learnt
If the government makes a mistake by giving someone an appointment outside the proper merit order, a person who was more deserving generally cannot force the courts to either cancel that appointment (especially after the appointee has served for years) or grant them a similar irregular benefit: the Constitution's equality guarantee does not extend to perpetuating errors.