Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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