Candidates cannot suffer for the employer’s legal error and are entitled to deemed appointment with consequential benefits.

The Gujarat Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for 13 posts of Principal, Class I, District Institute of Education and Training.

The petitioners participated in the selection and were placed at Serial Nos. 2, 5, 10 and 13 in the final select list declared on 30 December 2009.

A separate candidate, Dr. G. N. Chaudhari, challenged the selection process in SCA No. 605 of 2010.

On 27 January 2010, the Court restrained the authorities from operating the select list only insofar as it concerned Shri B. P. Gadhvi; the petitioners were not parties to that proceeding, and no restraint operated against their appointments.

Other candidates from the select list were appointed on 10 February 2011, but the petitioners were appointed only on 31 December 2011, allegedly because the authorities misunderstood the scope of the interim order.

The petitioners therefore sought a deemed date of appointment from 10 February 2011, with consequential service benefits.

1. Whether the petitioners, whose names appeared in the select list and against whom no interim restraint operated, were entitled to appointment with effect from 10 February 2011, the date on which other candidates from the same select list were appointed.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential service benefits, including seniority and continuity of service, on being granted the deemed date of appointment.

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle that a duly selected candidate should not suffer adverse service consequences where appointment is delayed for reasons attributable exclusively to the employer and not to any fault, disqualification or omission on the candidate’s part.

The Court further held that an interim order must be confined to its actual scope and cannot legally justify withholding appointments of candidates against whom no restraint operates.

Once a deemed date of appointment is granted, consequential benefits such as seniority and continuity of service may follow in accordance with law.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The petitioners were included in the valid select list dated 30 December 2009, and the interim order in SCA No. 605 of 2010 restrained operation of that list only in relation to Shri B. P. Gadhvi.

Since the petitioners were not parties to that proceeding and no order prevented their appointment, the State’s decision to defer their appointments was based on an erroneous understanding of the interim order.

The delay was therefore not attributable to the petitioners.

Applying the principle that an employer’s administrative or legal mistake cannot prejudice a duly selected candidate, the Court treated the petitioners at par with other candidates appointed from the same select list on 10 February 2011.

The Court consequently found them entitled to the associated service benefits.

The respondents were directed to treat the petitioners as appointed with effect from 10 February 2011, at par with the other candidates selected pursuant to the same select list.

The petitioners were also granted all consequential service benefits, including fixation of seniority, continuity of service and other attendant benefits in accordance with law.

The directions were to be implemented within three months from receipt of the judgment; the Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.