CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC 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 Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High 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