2023 Supreme(SC) 1032

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Dipankar Datta, JJ.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Uzair Imran & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6668-6669/2023 [ARISING OUT of SLP (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 21319/2022]
Decided On : 11-10-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment – Qualification – If qualifications mentioned in an advertisement inviting applications are at variance with statutorily prescribed qualifications, it is latter that would prevail – Normally, it is not function of court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular certificate and say that holder thereof satisfies eligibility criteria and, is qualified for appointment.
(2) Appointment – None has any legal right to claim public employment – However, if candidature is not rejected at threshold and candidate is allowed to participate in selection process and ultimately his name figures in merit list, though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment, he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment.

Headnote:

Service Law – Appointment – Qualification – If qualifications mentioned in an advertisement inviting applications are at variance with statutorily prescribed qualifications, it is latter that would prevail – Normally, it is not function of court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular certificate and say that holder thereof satisfies eligibility criteria and, is qualified for appointment – It is entirely prerogative of employer to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in selection process is eligible in terms of statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter zone of consideration – It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before court which tilts balance in favour of one party that court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence – Stage when ineligibility is cited for not offering employment also assumes importance. (Paras 11, 14 and 15)

(B) Service Law – Appointment – None has any legal right to claim public employment – In terms of Article 16 of Constitution, a candidate has only a right to be considered therefor – Once a candidate is declared ineligible to participate in selection process at threshold and if he still wishes to participate in process perceiving that his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected, it is for him to work out his remedy in accordance with law – However, if candidature is not rejected at threshold and candidate is allowed to participate in selection process and ultimately his name figures in merit list, though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment, he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment – Given stages of process that candidate has successfully crossed, he may not have vested right of appointment but a reasonable expectation of being appointed having regard to his position in merit list could arise – Employer-State being bound by Article 14 of Constitution, law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason – If plausible justification is provided, courts would be loath to question justification but justification must be such that it is rational and justifiable and not whimsical or capricious, warranting non-interference – Unfettered discretion, unaccountable approach and arbitrariness in State action are antithesis to Article 14. (Paras 15 and 17)

(C) Service Law – Appointment – Post of Postal Assistant – [Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) Recruitment Rules, 1990] – Principle that if two views are reasonably possible on a given set of facts and that courts would stay away from interference and not substitute its view for view taken by employer, may not apply in a case of present nature where conflicting views could be resolved by a mere reference to certificate issuing authority to clarify what certificate connoted – Future of a prospective appointee called for approach consistent with preambular promise of securing justice and equality of opportunity, which the appellant failed to secure – Third respondent has been discriminated against and arbitrarily deprived of fruit of selection – At this distance of time, it would not be worthwhile to order a remand particularly when appellant is responsible for lis being prolonged in excess of two decades – Third respondent 50 years old now and age of superannuation is reported to be 60 years – Third respondent shall be offered appointment, initially on probation, by appellant on a post of Postal Assistant (for which he was selected) within a month from date – If no post is vacant, a supernumerary post shall be created – Subject to satisfactory completion of period of probation, third respondent shall be confirmed in service. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Challenge in this appeal by the Union of India is to the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2017 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dismissing a Writ Petition of appellant as well as judgment and order dated 10th December, 2021 of High Court dismissing its Review Application. By judgment and order dated 4th April, 2017, High Court affirmed judgment and order dated 6th May, 1999 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal allowing an Original Application under Section 19 read with Section 14 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as well as a subsequent order dated 30th May, 2000 dismissing a Review Application.

Findings of Court:

Having not actually worked, the third respondent shall neither be entitled to arrears of salary nor shall he be entitled to claim seniority from date of appointment of other candidates who participated in recruitment process of 1995. Since third respondent, if confirmed after successful period of probationary service, would have less than 10 years’ service to his credit and consequently would fall short of qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits, appellant shall treat him to have been notionally appointed on the date the last of selected candidates was appointed pursuant to the process of 1995 only for the purpose of release of such benefits in accordance with law.

Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.