State action involving public employment must observe the principle of equality by treating similarly placed candidates uniformly. Administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily discriminate based on region, nor can they retrospectively supplement or improve the reasoning of original public orders during judicial review proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to equality - Hostile discrimination - Petitioner challenged rejection of candidature for post - Recruitment notice stipulated specific cutoff date for discharge from service - Petitioner served beyond this date - Similarly situated candidates in other regions selected despite identical discharge profiles - State failed to satisfy test of rational classification in distinguishing among applicants under uniform recruitment policy - Action held violative of equality guarantee. (Paras 36, 46, 47)

(B) Judicial Review - Power of - Scope - Statutory authority must justify orders based on reasons existing at time of issuance - Cannot improve or supplement orders with fresh grounds through affidavits during subsequent litigation - Principle of consistency in administrative decision-making applied - Failure of lower authority to address specific plea of discrimination renders order perverse. (Paras 22, 60, 61, 62)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former member of defense services, applied for positions in response to a public recruitment notice. The recruitment criteria required applicants to be discharged from service by a specific cutoff date. The petitioner was discharged one month after the mandated date. The petitioner challenged the rejection of their candidature on the grounds of hostile discrimination, submitting evidence that other candidates with similar timelines of discharge had been selected and appointed for the same notification by different recruiting centers.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that once a central authority conducts a recruitment process, it must ensure uniformity. Treating similarly situated candidates differently based on regional differences without a rational basis creates an unreasonable classification. The failure of the lower authority to address the specific plea of discrimination constituted perversity. Furthermore, the court held that public orders must stand or fall on the reasons cited at the time of their making; authorities cannot introduce new grounds during litigation to justify their decisions.

Issues: Whether the rejection of candidature based on a technical deviation in the discharge date was discriminatory, and whether the respondent authority could introduce fresh, unrecorded grounds to justify the decision during writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative decisions must adhere to constitutional equality and cannot sustain arbitrary distinctions among similarly situated individuals. Additionally, the validity of a public order must be assessed on the original grounds stated at the time of issuance; subsequent supplemental justifications are inadmissible.

Result: Petition allowed; respondents directed to issue appointment letter.

Table of Content
1. factual and procedural history of recruitment grievance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments regarding discrimination and procedural compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. scope of the high court's power of judicial review. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. violation of article 14 through unreasonable class discrimination. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
5. prohibition on substituting or improving public orders with new grounds (mohinder singh gill principle). (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
6. perversity of tribunal order allows for direct judicial intervention and final relief. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72)

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23.10.2024 passed in O.A. No.OA/051/00265/2023 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the relief sought for in the original application has been refused to be granted by passing the following order:

“8. This Tribunal has considered the whole matter in its entirety and found that the counsel for applicant has been harping on hurried disposal of his representation, and drawing inference that this reflects non-application of mind. This is in our view is a conjecture and without any basis because every expeditious decision cannot be termed as non-application of mind unless proved. There is no reason assigned by the applicant that this order is without merit. Had it been a decision that would have taken a long time then it cannot be said that it is because of application of mind and not because of the lethargy on the part of respondent.

9. The withdrawal of letter issued vide Annexure-8 through another letter vide Annexure Annexure-9 is based on cogent reasons that it would not be prudent to change the process when it has already begun. It would have been another issue of changing the rules of game midway and may have led to further litigation. Moreover, it relates to the consideration of cases condoning the delay during the Covid period which started in March 2020. It is to be noted that when the application for appointment was invited in 2019 this pandemic was not there, hence to use this as the reason for granting exemption on account of delay in discharge of the applicant after the cut-off date is not acceptable.

10. Lastly, the applicant while making the application for appointment has himself mentioned that his date of discharge is 20.03.2020, whereas his actual discharge was on 30.04.2020 that is after the cut-off date of 31.03.2020 thus making him guilty of making a false statement to make himself eligible for employment. This fact was noticed during the process of document verification. The applicant was allowed to appear in the examination on the basis of his false declaration hence his qualifying in the examination will not render him eligible for his employment. A parallel could be drawn with a well qualified candidate of Unreserved category who has crossed the maximum age limit. He makes a declaration that he belongs to a reserved category and therefore qualified to appear in the examination. He is allowed to appear and successfully qualifies the examination. This fact is detected at the time of document verification. Then he cannot take the plea that since he has qualified in the examination, he should be allowed to join because he took advantage of an advanced age that is permitted as a maximum age limit for a reserved category candidate. On the basis of consideration of all the factors we find that this O.A. is devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to cost.”

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition havi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 621

Cases Referred (10)