Dowry Case | In the absence of specific allegations, mere naming of distant relatives cannot justify prosecution: MP High Court Non-Commencement of Activities Alone Not a Ground for Refusal: Calcutta High Court at Calcutta Affirms Trust Registration, Stating Granting Shifting Permissions is a Quasi-Judicial Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Disciplinary Charges Against MCA Official Jurisdiction Does Not Preclude Transfer to Competent Family Courts: Rules Kerala High Court Madras High Court Acquits Two, Reduces Sentence of Main Accused: Single Injury Does Not Prove Intent to Murder Financial Creditors Retain Right to Pursue Personal Guarantors Post-Resolution Plan: Punjab & Haryana High Court Proper Notice and Enquiry are the Bedrock of Just Administrative Actions: Rajasthan High Court Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Madan Tamang Murder Case, Orders Trial for Bimal Gurung Review Cannot be Treated Like an Appeal in Disguise: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Tax Review Petition Delhi High Court Orders Interest Payment on Delayed Tax Refunds: ‘Refund Delays Cannot Be Justified by Legal Issues’” Freedom of Press Does Not Exempt Legal Consequences: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Journalists in Jail Sting Operation Highest Bidder Has No Vested Right”: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rejection of SEZ Plot Allotment Indefeasible Right to Bail Arises When Investigation Exceeds Statutory Period: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Extension Orders in NDPS Case Higher Qualifications Can't Override Prescribed Standards, But Service Deserves Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court A Mere Breach of Promise Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 406 IPC: Rajasthan High Court Madras High Court Overturns Order Denying IDA Increments, Citing Unfair Settlement Exclusion No Premeditated Intention to Kill: Kerala High Court Reduces Murder Convictions in Football Clash Case Landlord Need Not Be Owner to Seek Eviction: Court Upholds Broad Definition of Landlord under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Delhi High Court Sets Aside Status Quo on Property, Initiates Contempt Proceedings for False Pleadings and Suppression of Facts Calcutta High Court Rules Deceased Driver Qualifies as Third Party, Overrides Policy Limitations for Just Compensation A Litigant Who Pollutes the Stream of Justice Is Not Entitled to Any Relief: Rajasthan High Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Suppression of Evidence Punjab and Haryana High Court Awards Compensation in Illegal Termination Case, Affirms Forest Department as an 'Industry' Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Madras High Court Acquits Man in Double Murder Case Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Loan Repayment Dispute: Manifestly Attended with Mala Fide Intentions Systematic Instruction Essential for ‘Education’ Tax Exemption: Delhi High Court Intent to Deceive Constitutes Forgery: High Court of Calcutta Dismisses Quashing Petition in Fraudulent Property Inclusion Case

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.

 

Similar News