Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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