Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1517 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 19950 of 2021)
Decided On : 18-02-2022
Leave - Bihar Judicial Services Examination - 30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination - Extension of joining date due to personal difficulties and COVID-19 pandemic - Representation for condonation of delay - Cancellation of appointment - Writ petition - Relief granted by the Supreme Court
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a probationary Civil Judge, sought extension of joining date due to personal difficulties and the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite multiple representations explaining the delay, the High Court refused to permit the appellant to join and subsequently cancelled his appointment. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking relief, which was dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the appellant's delay in joining was due to reasons beyond his control, such as the COVID-19 lockdown and travel restrictions. The Court noted that the appellant had provided explanations and material to support his case, which were not adequately considered by the High Court. The Court also considered the appellant's marginalized background and willingness to waive seniority and back wages.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal to permit the appellant to join, the cancellation of his appointment, and the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that in the absence of a statutory provision prescribing a specific joining deadline, the High Court should have considered the extraordinary circumstances and permitted the appellant to join. The Court emphasized the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the appellant's ability to travel and communicate, and the appellant's marginalized background. The Court also considered the appellant's undertaking to waive seniority and back wages.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, quashed the notification cancelling the appellant's candidature, and restored the appellant's appointment with conditions. The appellant was not entitled to claim seniority or back wages and was required to undergo training with the next available batch.
ORDER
Leave granted.
1. The appellant participated in the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination conducted pursuant to notification No. 6/18. He came to be appointed as probationary Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 06.01.2020. In terms of the notification by which he stood appointed, the appellant was to join on 31.01.2020. The appellant pointing out certain personal difficulties which consisted of the delivery date of his wife and the surgery of his father, sought extension till April, 2020 by letter dated 22.01.2020. The same came to be favourably considered and allowed vide letter dated 20.02.2020. It was informed that the appellant was granted time till April, 2020. Thereafter, it is the case of the appellant that the appellant was prevented from joining consequent upon the COVID 19 pandemic. Accordingly, the appellant sought time by letter dated 08.06.2020 addressed to District Judge, Darbhanga Civil Court, that he was stuck in Nagpur and still stranded and that he will join at the directed place as soon as possible. Thereafter, he again wrote letter dated 20.06.2020 wherein reference was given of letter dated 20.02.2020 and that he was given time till April, 2020_ but he could not join on account of lockdown and was stuck in Nagpur and he sought permission to join on 20.06.2020.
2. According to him, he booked a rail ticket for travel, firstly on 15.06.2020, and again booked second ticket on 25.06.2020. But these bookings were got automatically cancelled since the tickets remained in waiting list. He further has a case that on 17.06.2020, he even booked flight ticket but could not board because of the diversion of route. It is, thereafter, that he paid a hefty sum to book a Scorpio bearing registration No. MH 40 AR 9112 and which dropped him at Bihar on 18.06.2020. He immediately rushed to his place of posting at Darbhanga. It is, accordingly, that he made a representation on 20.06.2020. The aforesaid facts are sought to be made good by not only the representation dated 20.06.2020 but from the subsequent representation which he has placed on record which is dated 01.09.2020. The response elicited from the Registrar General of the High Court was as follows:
"With reference to your letter dated 08.06.2020 and 20.06.2020, regarding prayer for allowing to join service as Probationary Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Biraul (Darbhanga), I am directed to say that no plausible explanation for delay is forth coming."
3. This led to a fresh representation by the appellant dated 13.07.2020, wherein he sought approval for the joining:
"With all respect, I beg to state that I am submitting explanation for condoning the delay. I went to Darbhanga on 8th July, 2020 with an application for joining where I was told that approval from Hon'ble High Court citing your reason as 'No Plausible explanation' originally I went to Darbhanga and reported in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Darbhanga on 20.06.2020 for joining.
Kindly approve for joining for which I shall be highly obliged."
4 . It is again followed up by another representation which is dated 25.07.2020 wherein he had inter alia sought approval for his joining as he was late due to being stuck in the lockdown at Nagpur explanation of which had been submitted.
5. There is yet another representation dated 12.08.2020 to the Registrar General wherein he stated as follows:
"With due respect I Rakesh Kumar 12.08.2020 submit and pray for joining as Probationary Civil Judge as directed at Biraul (Darbhanga). Kindly approve for my joining as I am late due to stuck in the nationwide lockdown at Nagpur. Explanation for this has been submitted on 13.07.2020 Sped Post No. EF-376409592 In and 25.07.2020 SP No. EF 640757673 IN through Speed Post.
I am trying to contact the concerned office but due to lockdown it could not be possible. It is therefore requested that your honour be kind enough to approve my joining."
6. This led to a further response from the Registrar General dated 13.8.2020. It was
Candidates must act with diligence regarding job offers, and failure to join after multiple extensions can lead to cancellation of appointment without grounds for legal challenge.
The non-timely conduct of medical examinations by the Respondent compounded by medical difficulties creates exceptional circumstances justifying the revival of a lapsed job offer.
The interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in the context of delay condonation applications should be liberal, focusing on the reasons for the delay rather than the duration alone, provided there is no....
The court affirmed that personal circumstances cannot justify excessive delays beyond statutory limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to cases of apparent error and does not extend to reinstating employment post-candidature cancellation due to delays.
Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be the basis for denying public appointment, and failure to provide a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice.
COVID-19 related absences fall under administrative reasons, warranting seniority adjustments in accordance with governing rules.
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
