Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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