Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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