Back
State Cannot Rely Solely on Portals for Recruitment Notices When Registered Post is Mandated:
The has delivered a significant ruling emphasizing that state authorities cannot ignore mandatory procedural protocols, such as providing formal notice via Registered Post, even when information is available in the digital domain. In the case of , the Court set aside an order that had denied a candidate the opportunity for for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science).
Case Background The dispute arose following an advertisement issued by the on , for various teaching positions. The petitioner, having secured a competitive score of 80.102 out of 150, was awaiting the call for . However, the communication regarding the verification date scheduled for , was issued by the on the very same day.
The petitioner faced a roadblock: she could not attend the verification process because she had not received timely notice. When her subsequent representation was rejected by the on , without adequate reasoning, she approached the seeking relief.
The Arguments For the Petitioner: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the action of the state was . Drawing attention to a state circular dated , counsel contended that the government is under a to issue notices for via Registered Post, at least 20 days prior to the scheduled date.
For the State: The government counsel maintained that as the information was uploaded to the official web portal of the , it was incumbent upon the candidate to remain vigilant and monitor the portal. The state argued that the petition was misconceived and that the candidate should have sought sooner rather than turning to the Court.
Legal Analysis The Court found that the advertisement lacked any instructions requiring candidates to rely solely on the web portal to track verification dates. Central to the Court’s reasoning was the explicit mandate of the state's own circular.
Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey observed that the government’s failure to abide by its own regulations—specifically —rendered the recruitment process flawed. The mandate clearly requires a 20-day notice period via Registered Post, a requirement which the respondents failed to meet by issuing the notice on the same day the verification was to take place.
Key Observations The emphasized the importance of following defined bureaucratic procedures to ensure fairness:
-
"The circular issued by the on , particularly , specifically provides that the candidate shall be informed about the date of verification of documents through Registered Post and such communication shall be issued at least 20 days prior to the scheduled date of verification."
-
"In the present case, communication was made on the very date fixed for verification, i.e., , therefore, the action on the part of respondent No.5 appears to be and illegal."
-
"Respondent No.3 was under an obligation to communicate to the petitioner the date of verification of documents through Registered Post at least 20 days prior to the scheduled date, but the respondents failed to do so."
Court's Decision Finding the rejection of the petitioner’s representation to be without merit and the to be illegal, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the respondent's order dated .
The Court directed the (Respondent No. 5) to consider the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science). The state has been granted a period of 120 days to complete this exercise. This judgment serves as a vital reminder to state authorities: the transition to does not grant license to bypass established protective procedures meant to safeguard the rights of candidates in public employment.
