Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
M.R. SHAH, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Narender Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Delay in Issuance of NOC - Appointment of Assistant Professor - Haryana Public Service Commission - [DELAY, APPOINTMENT, NOC] - [Education Act, Section 1647] - The court found that there was no delay or fault on the part of the appellant in obtaining the NOC, and the delay was attributed to the employer. The court also noted that the appellant scored more marks than the candidate who was appointed, and therefore, the appellant should have been appointed. The court directed the State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor (History) within two weeks, without entitlement to back wages but with continuity in service for the purpose of seniority and pay fixation. The court also directed that the candidate who was appointed should not be disturbed and should be accommodated on another vacant post of Assistant Professor (History).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a JBT Teacher, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (History) and faced delays in obtaining the NOC from the employer. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petitions seeking relief for the delay in NOC issuance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no delay or fault on the part of the appellant in obtaining the NOC, and the delay was attributed to the employer. The court also noted that the appellant scored more marks than the candidate who was appointed, and therefore, the appellant should have been appointed.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in the issuance of the NOC and the subsequent denial of appointment to the appellant despite being a more meritorious candidate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant should not be punished for the delay caused by the employer in issuing the NOC, and directed the State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission to appoint the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor (History) within two weeks.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the previous judgments, and directed the State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor (History) within two weeks. The court also directed that the candidate who was appointed should not be disturbed and should be accommodated on another vacant post of Assistant Professor (History).
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Narender Singh vs. The State of Haryana and Others:
Case Overview and Parties * The case involves an appeal by Narender Singh (Appellant) against the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's dismissal of his writ petitions seeking appointment as an Assistant Professor (History). (!) (!) (!) * The respondents include the State of Haryana and the Haryana Public Service Commission. (!) (!)
Facts of the Case * The appellant, a JBT Teacher since 2000, applied for 1647 Assistant Professor posts advertised on 16.02.2016. (!) (!) * The advertisement required a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the appointing authority at the time of the interview. (!) * The appellant applied for the NOC on 22.03.2016, which was received by the District Elementary Education Officer on 04.04.2016. (!) (!) * The appellant cleared the written examination on 06.11.2017 but could not appear for the interview due to the non-issuance of the NOC. (!) (!) * The appellant filed a writ petition on 05.12.2017; the High Court passed an interim order on 07.12.2017 allowing provisional interviews despite the missing NOC. (!) (!) * The NOC was finally issued on 06.06.2018 and submitted to the Public Service Commission on 08.06.2018, which was before the final appointments were made on 12.07.2018. (!) (!) (!) * The High Court previously dismissed the petitions, arguing the appellant had ample time to pursue the NOC earlier and refused appointment relief, though it imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the employer for the delay. (!) (!)
Issues and Arguments * Main Issue: Whether the appellant should be appointed despite the delay in obtaining the NOC, given that he was a more meritorious candidate than the one actually appointed. (!) (!) * Appellant's Argument: There was no delay or fault on the appellant's part; the delay was caused by the employer. Since the last appointed candidate scored fewer marks (62.64) than the appellant (64.89), the appellant is entitled to appointment. (!) (!) (!) * Respondent's Argument (Public Service Commission): Claimed no involvement as they are not the competent authority for NOC issuance. (!) * Respondent's Argument (State of Haryana): Admitted the delay was on the part of the District Elementary Education Officer but argued against disturbing the current appointee. (!) * Respondent's Argument (Appointed Candidate): Requested protection of his appointment since he has been in service for over three years, is a Ph.D., and is the sole breadwinner for his family. He requested to be shifted to another vacant post. (!) (!)
Court's Findings and Ratio Decidendi * The Supreme Court found no delay or fault on the part of the appellant; the entire delay was attributable to the employer. (!) (!) * The Court noted that the appellant was a more meritorious candidate than the last person appointed. (!) (!) * Denying appointment to the appellant while he was not at fault and was more qualified was deemed unjustifiable. (!) * The Court held that the lower courts committed a grave error in not directing the appointment of the appellant. (!)
Final Decision and Directives * The appeal was allowed, and the previous judgments dismissing the writ petitions were quashed. (!) (!) * The State Government and Haryana Public Service Commission were directed to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor (History) within two weeks. (!) (!) * Seniority and Pay: The appellant is entitled to continuity in service for seniority and pay fixation but is not entitled to back wages under the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. (!) * Protection of Current Appointee: The respondent who was already appointed (Respondent No. 4) shall not be disturbed in his service. (!) (!) * Accommodation: The current appointee (Respondent No. 4) is directed to be accommodated on any other vacant post of Assistant Professor (History). (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 28.09.2021 in LPA No. 902 of 2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal, the appellant herein-the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
2.2 To comply with the same, the appellant applied for issuance of NOC on 22.03.2016 through the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Jhanswa, District Jhajjar to the District Elementary Education Officer, Jhajjar, the competent authority to issue the NOC. That the said application was received by the office of District Elementary Education Officer, Jhajjar on 04.04.2016. The appellant appeared for the written examination for the aforesaid post on 05.03.2017. The result of the written examination was also declared on 06.11.2017 and the appellant cleared the written examination. That after clearing the written examination, the appellant was to submit the NOC at the time of interview. The appellant sent a reminder to the Director, Elementary Education for issuance of the NOC vide his letter dated 09.11.2017, which was received on 09.11.2017 but no action was taken by the concerned branch on his reminder. Therefore, the appellant filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 27864 of 2017 before the High Court for an appropriate order directing the appropriate authority to issue NOC. It was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that though he had made an application for NOC as far as back in the month of March, 2016, the NOC has not been issued. It was also submitted that despite the fact that he has passed the written examination and interviews are to be held on 13.12.2017, the Department of Elementary Education is not issuing him NOC. By order dated 07.12.2017, the High Court issued the notice in the aforesaid writ petition and passed the interim order that the petitioner, if he falls within the zone of consideration for being called for an interview for the post in question, shall be provisionally interviewed, regardless of the fact that an NOC has not been issued so far by the Department of Elementary Education.
2.3 It appears that pursuant to the interim order dated 07.12.2017, the appellant was interviewed provisionally and his result was kept in a sealed cover. However, the Public Service Commission did not appoint him in absence of any NOC issued by the Department of Elementary Education. Result of the final selection in respect of the interviews got conducted was declared on 15.12.2017 and the appointments were made on 12.07.2018. In between, a Writ Petition No. 27864 of 2017 came up before the High Court on 30.04.2018. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Public Service Commission produced the result of the appellant in a sealed cover, which was opened and it was revealed that the last candidate in the category of the appellant, i.e. BCA has obtained 62.64 marks whereas the writ petitioner had scored 64.89 marks, therefore, the High Court observed that the appellant-original petitioner is qualified for sele
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
