High Court committed grave error by not directing to appoint more meritorious candidate - SC

Supreme Court in latest case related to service matter observed that there was no lapse and/or delay on the part of the appellant and /or there was no fault of the appellant in not producing the NOC at the relevant time and when it was produced immediately on receipt of the same and that too before the appointments were made and when it is found that the last candidate, who is appointed, i.e., respondent No.4 herein is having less marks than the appellant and thus the appellant is a more meritorious candidate than the last candidate appointed, to deny him the appointment is not justifiable at all.

Facts  of the case - appellant  appointed as a JBT Teacher in the year 2000 since then working as a JBT Teacher in Haryana - Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 1647 posts of Assistant Professor on 16.02.2016 - appellant applied timely for the post - the candidate  required to submit a NOC in case he is serving in a Government/Semi Government organization at the time of interview - appellant applied for issuance of NOC on 22.03.2016 -  appeared for the written examination for post on 05.03.2017 - clearing the written examination - sent a reminder to the Director, Elementary Education for issuance of  NOC dated 09.11.2017 -  received on 09.11.2017 but no action was taken – appellant  approached High court – issued interim order - provisionally interviewed , regardless  NOC has issued - appellant  interviewed provisionally - his result was kept in a sealed cover - not appointed in absence of NOC -  result of the final selection declared on 15.12.2017 and the appointments were made on 12.07.2018 - Public Service Commission produced the result of the appellant in a sealed cover - revealed that the last candidate in the category of the appellant, i.e., BCA has obtained 62.64 marks whereas appellant scored 64.89 marks - High Court observed - appellant qualified for selection -adjourned the matter to - authority issued NOC in favour of appellant on 06.06.2018 and submitted the NOC requested to consider his case for appointment –  not appointed - filed a fresh Writ Petition to appoint him on the post of Assistant Professor –High Court dismissed both the writ petitions but imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/- against the employer for not issuing the NOC and refused to pass any order of appointment in - Appellant preferred Letter Patent Appeal but High Court  dismissed – aggrieved preferred appeal to Supreme Court.

Argued by the Appellant in Apex Court that there was no delay and/or any fault on the part of the appellant, applied for NOC well within time even thereafter a reminder was sent. Appellant was constrained to file the writ petition to directing the appropriate authority to issue the NOC and only thereafter the NOC was issued on 06.06.2018, which was produced before the Public Service Commission on 08.06.2018, i.e., much before the final result/appointments were made. Even the High Court also imposed the cost on the employer for delay in processing the application for NOC.

While Public Service Commission contended that it has nothing to do with the controversy.

While State contended that that an inquiry had been directed to be initiated for not processing and issuing the NOC at the earliest. Not disputed the appellant has scored more marks than last appointed candidate, respondent No.4.

Apex court observed that Both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the grave error in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it and in not directing the respondents to appoint the appellant though he is found to be more meritorious candidate than the last candidate appointed, i.e., respondent No.4.

And held that in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to do the substantial justice, we direct that while appointing the appellant as per the present order on the post of Assistant Professor (History), the respondent No.4 may not be disturbed, and we direct the State Government to continue the respondent No.4 and he be accommodated on any other vacant post.

D.D: - JANUARY 18, 2022.

Narender Singh   Versus The State of Haryana & Ors.