“Recruitment”, “Advertisement”, “Selection” and “Appointment” are different concepts under the service jurisprudence. “Recruitment” is the process of generating a pool of capable people to apply for employment in organization. Selection forms integral part of recruitment process, wherein from amongst eligible candidates, choice is made of person or persons capable to do the job as per the requirement. The process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. “Appointment” is made, after selection process is over, issuance of letter in favour of selected candidates, is an offer to selected candidate to accept the office or position to which he has been selected. On acceptance of the terms and conditions of appointment, the selected candidates on joining has to be accepted as appointed. Ravi Raj v. State of U.P., Writ – A No. – 26584 of 2011, decided on February 7, 2020
Tag Archives: Mode of Appointment
Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts, it was held in SAIL v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122, as under:
“the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties.”
It was held in Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 that the following factors had been held to be determinative for considering the equation of posts,:
1. The nature and duties of a post;
2. The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
3. The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and
4. The salary of the post.
After referring to Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in SAIL v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 SCC 122, held as under:
“25. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981) 4 SCC 130 and L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha, (1986) 3 SCC 7, a similar view has been reiterated observing that equal status and nature and responsibilities of the duties attached to the two posts have to be taken into consideration for equivalence of the post. Similar view has been reiterated in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3 Rooplal v. Lt. Governor, (2000) 1 SCC 644, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court following the earlier judgment in Union of India v. P.K. Roy, AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the salary of the post alone may not be a determining factor, the other three criteria should also be fulfilled.” Punjab SEB v. Thana Singh, (2019) 4 SCC 113.