In Brief
The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court could direct the appointment of a candidate to a lecturer post after quashing another candidate's appointment as fraudulently obtained. The Court held that when an entire selection process is found tainted by fraud, collusion and record manipulation, courts cannot appoint an alternative from that same process, even if better qualified. Instead, a fresh, transparent selection must be initiated. The Court confirmed the quashing of the appellant's appointment but set aside the High Court's direction to appoint the respondent, ordering a supervised, new recruitment process to be completed within three months.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.