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

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision on Recruitment Qualifications: Relaxation Deemed Unsustainable Post-Application Deadline

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a High Court judgment that allowed for the relaxation of prescribed essential qualifications for certain recruitment post-codes after the application deadline. The apex court, led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Manoj Misra, delivered a significant ruling on November 9, 2023, impacting the recruitment process for Post Codes 447 and 556.

The Supreme Court firmly stated, "Relaxation deemed unsustainable post-application deadline without providing opportunity to similarly situated candidates," addressing a crucial aspect of the public recruitment process. This decision underscores the commitment to upholding constitutional mandates and ensuring fair competition in recruitment.

The judgment centered on the interpretation and implications of the State Government's relaxation/clarificatory order dated 21.08.2017, related to recruitment under the Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board Act, 1986, and other relevant regulations. The court found that the relaxation was not legally sustainable as it was issued after the deadline for applications without offering a fair opportunity to all potential candidates.

The Supreme Court's decision has reversed the High Court's directions for recasting the merit list using relaxed criteria. The apex court emphasized the need for adherence to stipulated selection criteria, stating, "Merit list for Post Code 556 not to be redrawn; recruitment for Post Code 817 to follow extant rules."

Furthermore, the Court decided not to disturb the appointments already made under the first advertisement for Post Code 447, acknowledging the practical implications of such a measure. The bench observed, "Appointments under Post Code 447 not to be disturbed despite eligibility gained through later relaxation."

Legal experts view this judgment as a reinforcement of the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness in public employment. The ruling also signifies judicial restraint in administrative decision-making related to recruitment policies.

The judgment has significant implications for future recruitment processes, underlining the importance of transparency and adherence to predefined criteria. It sets a precedent for how alterations in recruitment qualifications should be handled, ensuring fairness and equal opportunity for all candidates.

This decision is expected to influence recruitment policies across various sectors, emphasizing the need for clear and consistent criteria in public employment.                                                            

Date of Decision: 09 November 2023

ANKITA THAKUR & ORS.  VS THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION  COMMISSION & ORS.    

Latest Legal News