Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

High Court Orders Sports Council to Appoint Meritorious Candidate, Citing Arbitrary Action

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment delivered today, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has ordered the J & K State Sports Council to appoint a meritorious candidate for the post of Driver, denouncing the arbitrary action taken by the council. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, presiding over the case, emphasized that the employer's discretion in appointments cannot be exercised arbitrarily, highlighting the importance of justifiable and non-discriminatory decision-making.

The case, filed as SWP No. 1015/2015, revolved around the petitioner, Ravinder Singh, who was declared the most meritorious candidate during the selection process for two Driver posts initiated by the J & K State Sports Council. However, the council disregarded Singh's superior merit and appointed another candidate, identified as respondent 2, who was both less meritorious and ineligible as per the advertisement notice.

Justice Wani, while pronouncing the judgment, stated, "The respondent-Council's action in appointing respondent 2 over the petitioner, despite the petitioner's superior merit and respondent 2's ineligibility, was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of power." The court emphasized that employers must adhere to the rule of law and provide justifiable reasons for not appointing successful candidates, particularly when the employer is a state entity.

Furthermore, Justice Wani underscored the reasonable expectations of candidates participating in selection processes, highlighting that the employer cannot decline to fill a position without reasonable cause. "If vacancies exist and suitable candidates have been selected, there must be a justifiable reason to decline their appointment," the court stated. The judgment invoked Article 14 of the Constitution of India, underscoring the importance of non-arbitrary decision-making.

Consequently, the High Court issued a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondent-Council to offer the petitioner, Ravinder Singh, the appointment as a Driver and grant him all the consequential benefits that respondent 2 had received.

This landmark decision serves as a reminder that employers, particularly state entities, are obligated to respect the comparative merit of candidates and ensure fairness in the selection and appointment processes. The judgment further underscores the significance of upholding the rule of law in administrative actions.

Date of Decision: June 5, 2023

Ravinder Singh   VS J & K State Sports Council and ors.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Ravinder-Singh-Vs-State-05June-23-J^0K-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News