The apex court has issued notices to the State Government and the original petitioner in the High Court, seeking their responses in the matter.
The controversy stems from a High Court ruling that invalidated the appointments of 67 candidates who were found ineligible. The court had held that candidates who did not possess the mandatory educational qualifications by the last date of application could not be considered legally appointed.
During the selection process, authorities had identified 89 candidates who allegedly did not hold the required diploma or degree as of March 23, 2011 — the final date for submitting applications. Despite this, they were selected for appointment.
Background of the Case
In 2011, an advertisement was issued for 275 posts of Sub-Engineer under the Rural Engineering Service. It was later alleged that instead of filling 275 posts, the department appointed 383 candidates, raising questions about procedural violations.
The matter reached the High Court after a petition was filed by Ravi Tiwari, challenging the appointments. Initially, a Single Bench dismissed the plea. However, the petitioner appealed before a Division Bench.
After hearing the case, the Division Bench ruled that 67 of the appointees were ineligible as they had not completed the required educational qualifications by the cut-off date. Their appointments were subsequently cancelled.
During the High Court proceedings, the State Government argued that the department had later decided to allow candidates appearing in their final semester examinations to participate in the recruitment process. The government also contended that many of the employees had been serving for nearly 14 years and that their services had already been regularised.
Challenge in the Supreme Court
Following the High Court’s decision, the affected Sub-Engineers approached the Supreme Court. After preliminary hearings, the apex court stayed the High Court’s order, effectively reinstating the 67 employees until further proceedings.
The matter will now be heard in detail after responses are filed by the concerned parties. The case is likely to have broader implications for recruitment norms, eligibility criteria, and long-serving employees in government departments.
