Civil Appeal No. 2679 of 2024
(2024) 3 SCC 563
Facts
The appeal in the Honorable Supreme Court is by the appellant who seeked appointment in Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped, referred to ahead as the ‘Institute’, as a primary school teacher. The appeal was brought to the court since the appellant was discontented by the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed his writ appeal, which was in turn made against the order of the Single Judge, which dismissed his writ petition.
In March 2016, the Institute announced an advertisement inviting applications for the position of primary school teachers. The circular outlined the vacancy details along with the qualifications and selection process required for the role. Candidates needed to have a senior secondary qualification, accompanied by a 2 year diploma in ETE/JBT or B.EI.Ed. Additionally, passing secondary level Hindi was mandatory. The final step in hiring involved conducting interviews with qualified candidates. The Institute retained the discretionary authority to review and revise the selection process and candidate shortlisting at any stage, with its decisions being final and binding.
This authority was informed under clause 14, which indicated that the institution’s decision regarding eligibility, review, required documents for the interview, selection process, and any recruitment-related matters would be conclusive and binding. The institution also reserved the right to postpone or cancel the recruitment of any candidate at any stage, with such decisions deemed final and binding. Clause 19 further stipulated that merely meeting the minimum educational qualifications does not guarantee an invitation to the subsequent recruitment phases. It also reserved the Institute’s right to shortlist applications as they see fit without providing reasons for rejection.
On 27th April 2016 the Institute revised the procedure initially outlined in the original advertisements by eliminating the interview segment of the selection process. Instead, they assigned additional marks for qualifications, supplementary qualifications, necessary experience and written tests. 10 marks had been prescribed, which were to be awarded as follows –
| SL | Particulars | Marks | |
| 2. | Marks for Additional Qualifications (Maximum) | 10 | |
| A | PG Diploma | 5 | |
| B | PG Degree | 6 | |
| C | MPhil/Professional Qualification in the Field | 7 | |
| D | PhD | 10 | |
Table 1
When the results were announced, the appellant received 57.50 marks, whereas respondent no.3 obtained 58.25 marks. Upon investigation, the appellant discovered that respondent no.3’s total included an additional 7 marks for possessing a professional qualification as specified in the table. He also found out that he had not been awarded the 6 marks he deserved for holding a PG degree, which would have put him at the top of the list with 63.50 marks, which was denied to him on the reason that the PG degree he held was not in the relevant subject.
Issue
Whether the action of the Institute to deny the 6 marks on the ground that the PG Degree held by him is not in the relevant subject when such a ground was never raised with him and never communicated to him earlier is illegal and arbitrary?
Contention
- Appellant –
The appellant argues the denial of 6 marks for the additional qualification of PG Degree that he possesses for not being in the relevant subject as being illegal and arbitrary and has been laid down in the new guidelines for the candidates and the deviation from the established guidelines.
- Respondents –
The respondents raised the standard defense by invoking the clause 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular to argue that they held the right to shortlist candidates as considered appropriate. They also raise the fact that the PG Degree that the appellant held was not in a relevant subject.
Rationale
The Single Judge of the High Court declined to intervene, adhering to the principle established in University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), which states that the determination of qualifying criteria in academic matters should be left to the discretion of the respective institution.
The appellant then preferred a writ appeal in front of a division bench, which also held up the principle laid down in Neha Anil Bobde, which had been held up in several other cases. The bench observed that in such cases with regard to academics, the interference of the court should be minimum. It also referred to clause 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular, which provided the Institute with the right to reserve the short listing of applications as it deem fit.
The Supreme Court determined that clauses 14 and 19 only serve to maintain flexibility in the selection process. They cannot be interpreted as granting the Institute unlimited discretion to introduce new criteria (such as including the words ‘in the relevant subject’ in the respondents defense) to the established qualifications. The court views this as a clear example of arbitrary action and therefore rejects the respondents’ argument based on clauses 14 and 19.
The court also states that the addition of the words ‘in the relevant subject’ makes the point C in the notification dated 27.04.2016 redundant. In the notification, categories A, B and D deal with general additional qualifications (PG Diploma, PG Degree and PhD) whereas category C (MPhil/Professional Qualification in the field) deals with Professional Qualification in the field, which requires some specialisation. If the Institute includes the phrase ‘in the relevant subject’ to matters in B, it introduces a specialization requirement, thereby rendering category C unnecessary. This approach would negate the very intent of offering a PG Degree on its own, as outlined earlier in Table 1, and assigning a reduced value of 6 marks would be entirely undermined by such an interpretation.
The two high court appeals did not analyse the mark allocation for additional qualifications. They confined their decision to limit their scope for judicial review and dismissed the appellants requests. But at the same time, when dealing with flexibility in the executive functioning, the courts cannot simply let sheer arbitrariness through.
The school, which was closed in 2023, cannot now offer consequential remedy. Thus, the courts settled for monetary relief
Judgment
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the judgment from the High Court in W. P. (C) No. 5279 of 2017 and C. M. No. 22382 of 2017 dated 24-. 01. 2018, accompanied with the judgment in L. P. A. No. 158 of 2018 dated 16/05/2018. 10. 2018, were overturned. Besides, the Supreme Court directed that the Institute (respondent no. 2) must deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the appellant within six weeks from the order date along with the cost of the proceedings which was fixed at Rs. 25,000.
Defects of law
While there are some controversial topics as a part of every case judgment, according to me, there is no such issue in the case. The judgment passed by the Honorable Supreme Court understood all the issues that plagued the appellant and passed a judgment that was fair and just. The judgment led to the furtherance of justice and put a stop to arbitrary employment practices in the future by serving as a precedent for all future cases with similar issues.
Inference
Thus, the verdict illustrates another important function of the judiciary in upholding justice and preventing unnecessary bureaucratic actions which may be illegal or capricious. By ensuring principles of equity and equality are put in place during recruitment processes, the judiciary enhances the rule of law; hence, promoting public trust in administrative systems. It does not only compensate but it sets an important precedent in relation to administrative law for the Supreme Court. The decision emphasizes that such rules as those of natural justice comprising a right to fair hearing and impartiality must be followed strictly during any public recruitment. Additionally, compliance with laid down procedures is emphasized whether that means transparency and accountability in administrative actions. The decision is a reminder to public bodies that they must act legally and in accordance with the rules of procedure. It discourages potential misuse of administrative power and guards against any unfairness in practice. .
Conclusion
This precedent-setting judgment not only ends the pending row, but gives further direction on what constitutes lawfulness in relation to employment issues arising in the public sector. Therefore it adds credibility into recruitment procedures and ensures that meritocracy and justice prevail hence contributing towards a more fair and reasonable administration system. The Supreme Court’s intervention demonstrates its commitment to uphold the constitutional values of justice, equality, and good governance, reinforcing the principles that are essential for the effective functioning of a democratic society.
Work Cited
Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 563 (Main Case used for case commentary)
University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) (2013) 10 SCC 519.
Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (1980) 3 SCC 97
All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan (2009) 11 SCC 726.
Author
Neel Kulkarni
OP Jindal Global University
June 2024