MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator 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

Rejection of Candidates on Mere Suspicion is Unjust: Calcutta High Court Orders Reconsideration in RPF Recruitment Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has directed the Railway Protection Force (RPF) to reconsider the appointments of two candidates who had cleared all stages of the selection process for the post of Constable but were denied appointments on allegations of impersonation. The judgment, delivered by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, emphasized procedural fairness and the necessity of substantial evidence before rejecting candidates.

Procedural Irregularities in Selection Process: The court scrutinized the RPF’s selection process under Employment Notice No. 01/2011, where petitioners had successfully completed the written examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT), and viva voce. Despite these achievements, appointment letters were withheld. The High Court found procedural irregularities, notably the rejection of candidates on suspicion without providing them an opportunity to respond.

Right to Fair Treatment: Addressing the allegations of impersonation against petitioners Krishna Murari Kumar and Binod Kumar, the court held, “Rejection of candidates on mere suspicion of impersonation without giving them an opportunity to respond is unjust.” The court observed that the petitioners were not given a fair chance to contest the allegations, which were primarily based on discrepancies in fingerprint matches.

Legal Reasoning: Justice Chowdhury underscored the importance of procedural fairness, particularly in public recruitment. The court referenced several landmark cases, including Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu (2003) and State of UP v. Ravindra Kumar (2009), emphasizing the principle that decisions impacting candidates’ careers must be backed by substantial evidence and due process.

Justice Chowdhury remarked, “In view thereof, meritorious candidates securing high marks cannot be ignored on the whims and caprice of the respondents that too on the basis of suspicion.”

Decision: The judgment directed the RPF to process the candidatures of Krishna Murari Kumar and Binod Kumar within four weeks, stressing that age-bar impediments should not affect the delayed appointments. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair recruitment processes and protecting candidates’ rights against arbitrary actions by authorities.

Date of Decision:24th May, 2024

SURYA MANDDY & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

 

Latest Legal News