2008 Supreme(SC) 1409

2008(7) Supreme 92
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Aftab Alam, JJ.
T. Jayakumar — Appellant
versus
A. Gopu & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5766 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP) No.9424/2005]
Decided on : 22-09-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
If the reason for excluding a candidate from the selection process is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary the Tribunal may certainly intervene but if the reason itself is valid the tribunal cannot interfere simply because the candidate was allowed participation in the selection process by being called for interview.

Headnote:Service Law – Appointment of appellant to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master – Challenge there against by respondent – Plea of respondent authority before tribunal that application of respondent.1 that was received within time was invalid as it did not bear his signature and his second application was received after the last date for submission of applications – Tribunal allowing OA of respondent directed the concerned authority to accept his application as received within time and to consider his case for appointment as EDBPM – Appeal there against – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – No principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable – A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light – If the reason for excluding a candidate from the selection process is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary the Tribunal may certainly intervene but if the reason itself is valid the tribunal cannot interfere simply because the candidate was allowed participation in the selection process by being called for interview – The principle of estoppel held to have no application in such a case – In the facts of the case it could not be said that decision of concerned authority not to accept any of two applications of respondent 1, first being invalid for want of signature and the other being beyond time, was totally unreasonable and arbitrary – High Court came to no such finding – And yet the High Court observed that second application ought to have been treated as ‘part and parcel’ of the first application and substituted its own view in matter for view taken by respondent authority – Such an approach might have been permissible for departmental appellate authority but it was plainly beyond the scope of judicial review – Hence held that concerned authority had not exercised its discretion unreasonably and arbitrarily in rejecting both the applications submitted by respondent no.1 and any interference in the matter was hardly called for by the Tribunal or the High Court – Impugned orders of High Court and Tribunal being unsustainable, set aside – Having regard to the special facts of case concerned postal authorities directed to find out a suitable vacant position against which respondent no.1 may be adjusted – Appeal allowed in part. (Paras 10 to 14)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Appointment of appellant to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master was challenged herein in the instant case by respondent. Plea of respondent authority before tribunal was that application of respondent.1 that was received within time was invalid as it did not bear his signature and his second application was received after the last date for submission of applications. Tribunal allowing OA of respondent directed the concerned authority to accept his application as received within time and to consider his case for appointment as EDBPM. Appeal there against was dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present Appeal has been filed against impugned orders of Tribunal and High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        If the reason for excluding a candidate from the selection process is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary the Tribunal may certainly intervene but if the reason itself is valid the tribunal cannot interfere simply because the candidate was allowed participation in the selection process by being called for interview. The principle of estoppel held to have no application in such a case. In the facts of the case it could not be said that decision of concerned authority not to accept any of two applications of respondent 1, first being invalid for want of signature and the other being beyond time, was totally unreasonable and arbitrary. High Court came to no such finding. And yet the High Court observed that second application ought to have been treated as ‘part and parcel’ of the first application and substituted its own view in matter for view taken by respondent authority. Such an approach might have been permissible for departmental appellate authority but it was plainly beyond the scope of judicial review. Hence held that concerned authority had not exercised its discretion unreasonably and arbitrarily in rejecting both the applications submitted by respondent no.1 and any interference in the matter was hardly called for by the Tribunal or the High Court. Impugned orders of High Court and Tribunal being unsustainable were set aside.

       Result : Appeal allowed in part.