Appointment To Public Posts Cannot Be Done On Hereditary Basis : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently ruled against the hereditary appointments in the public service. The Court said that the appointment to the public posts cannot be done on hereditary basis, and such an appointment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.Holding so, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan upheld the Patna High Court's decision which had struck down...
The Supreme Court recently ruled against the hereditary appointments in the public service.
The Court said that the appointment to the public posts cannot be done on hereditary basis, and such an appointment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Holding so, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan upheld the Patna High Court's decision which had struck down a State Government's Rule permitting hereditary public appointments on the post of chaukidars as unconstitutional.
Proviso (a) to Rule 5(7) of Bihar Chaukidari Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2014 allowed a retiring chowkidar to nominate dependent kin for appointment in his place.
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court struck down this Rule as violative of Articles 14 (equality) and 16 (equal opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant-Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) approached the Supreme Court.
Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan referenced the recent cases of Manjit vs. Union of India, (2021) 14 SCC 48 and Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railways v. A. Nishanth George, (2022) 11 SCC 678, where the Court struck down a Railway scheme allowing wards of retiring employees to get jobs, terming it a "backdoor entry” and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Reference was also drawn to the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 564 where a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed to examine the validity of Section 6(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 which required the Collector to make appointments from amongst those whose families had previously held the office.
The Court in Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao's case allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the orders of appointment of a Respondent whose appointment on the village officer was made just because he was a family member of the person who previously held the office.
In this regard, the Court also referenced the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment in the case of Kala Singh v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 19387 where the Division Bench speaking through Justice Surya Kant (as he then was) set aside the appointment made through a scheme which permits hereditary appointments in Railways, noting that the device evolved by the Railways to make backdoor entries in public employment and brazenly militates against equality in public employment and was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Referring to these principles, the Court said, "the Constitution of India shuns appointment in public service by succession. In other words, employment should not flow as if it were heritable."
Elaborating on the principle of equal opportunities in public employment, the Court observed :
"Two propositions in our Constitutional jurisprudence are no longer debatable. One is, there has to be equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and the other that, any law, which permits entry into public service without granting equal opportunity to all, would fall foul of Article 16 and is liable to be outlawed unless a reasonable classification, which is also valid, can be shown to exist."
The Court explained that public employment has to be preceded by
(i) an appropriate advertisement inviting applications from eligible aspirants to offer their candidature or/and by requisitioning names of prima facie eligible candidates from the employment exchanges,
(ii) screening the eligible aspirants by keeping aside the ineligible,
(iii) conducting of a process of selection meeting the tests of fairness and transparency with a body of selectors constituted in accordance with the relevant law,
(iv) making an impartial and bias-free selection upon due assessment of the inter se merits of the aspirants,
(v) preparation of a merit list of candidates found suitable as per merit and arranging their names recognising such merit with due regard to rules of reservation, both vertical and horizontal,
(vi) preparing a wait-list of candidates, if the governing rules so governing rules so require and
(vii) then proceeding to offer appointments from the merit list as well as from the waiting list, if the occasion to operate such a waiting list does arise, giving due regard to merit - and merit alone.
Limited exceptions are there for compassionate appointments, appointments on dying-in-harness schemes, protective discrimination schemes etc.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the High Court committed no error in striking down the offending Rule as unconstitutional.
Also From Judgment: Even As We Near 80 Yrs Of Independence, Not Enough Public Jobs Generated For Eligible Candidates : Supreme Court
Case Title: BIHAR RAJYA DAFADAR CHAUKIDAR PANCHAYAT (MAGADH DIVISION) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 394
Click here to read/download the judgment
