Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

Constitutional Law – Employment and Recruitment Process – Cancellation of Selection Process – Arbitrary Action by Authorities – Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India – Service law

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment upholding the principles of rule of law in the realm of public employment, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has overturned the arbitrary cancellation of a selection process involving the recruitment of Tradesman Mate posts. The landmark decision came in the case of SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (CWP-15452-2019), pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal on January 25, 2024.

The petitioners, Sandeep Kumar and another individual, were selected for the post of Tradesman Mate but were later denied appointment due to an alleged non-adherence to Standard Operative Procedures (SOP) by the local unit during the recruitment process. The petitioners challenged this cancellation, arguing that the fault lay with the local unit and not with them.

Justice Bansal, in his judgment, noted the arbitrary nature of the cancellation by the respondents. "The entire selection process was followed. As per the stand of the Headquarter, the local unit deviated from SOP qua advertisement and report from employment exchange. The petitioners are not at fault. They have cleared all the steps. If there was an infirmity, it was on the part of the local unit, and petitioners cannot be made to suffer," the Court observed.

Justice Bansal further emphasized the significance of equality and arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution, stating, "Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14."

The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to join the post within three months from the date of the judgment. It was also ordered that the date of joining of the petitioners would be considered as the date of their appointment for all service benefits.

This judgment sets a precedent in ensuring fairness in public recruitment processes. It underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of the rule of law and maintaining transparency and fairness in governmental actions, particularly in matters of employment.

The decision by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana is a significant step towards reinforcing the principles of justice and fairness in administrative actions. It serves as a reminder to all public authorities to act within the bounds of law and fairness, especially in matters impacting the lives and careers of individuals.

Date of Decision: 25.01.2024

SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Latest Legal News