Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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