Procedural And Technical Hurdles Cannot Impede Substantial Justice: Rajasthan HC Grants Appointment To Candidate Who Erred In Submitting Application
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the application of rules should be with a humane approach and if procedural violation does not cause prejudice, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation.“When substantial and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be...
Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the application of rules should be with a humane approach and if procedural violation does not cause prejudice, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation.
“When substantial and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice.”
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur granted relief to the petitioner who had applied for the post of a lab technician but was denied appointment despite securing more marks than the selected candidates.
It was the case of the petitioner that his candidature was rejected since he failed to fill out his experience certificate as per the guidelines issued with the advertisement for the post. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that another candidate who had filled the experience certificate in the same format as that of the petitioner was granted an appointment which reflected hostile discrimination.
The Court observed that after comparing the experience certificate that was submitted by the petitioner with the prescribed proforma, it was revealed that the latter had only one additional column containing a question. The Court further highlighted that the information required in that additional column was already submitted by the petitioner through documents produced with the application form.
In this light, the Court held that the petitioner could not be refused appointment for non-filling of that column especially when another candidate had been appointed despite submitting the experience certificate in the same format as that of the petitioner.
“In the considered opinion of this court, non filling of the information in column No.8 cannot be a ground to refuse appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lab Technician more particularly when the certificate which is similar in nature has been produced by one Phool Singh and the same has been considered by the respondents and he has been given appointment on the post of Lab Technician.”
The Court further opined that the judiciary was not respected for its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but for being capable of removing it and was expected to do so. The Court also stated that litigation was a journey towards truth which was a foundation of justice and the court was required to adopt a pragmatic approach while doing substantial justice.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be granted the appointment.
Title: Bhagwan Puri Goswami v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 243