Court Should Be Cautious And Slow In Dealing With The Recruitment Process Adopted By Recruitment Agencies: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (on March 05) held that merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, relief cannot be extended to a deprived candidate. It was also observed that courts have to be cautious and slow in dealing with the recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the rules and regulations, the...
The Supreme Court (on March 05) held that merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, relief cannot be extended to a deprived candidate. It was also observed that courts have to be cautious and slow in dealing with the recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the rules and regulations, the Court said.
In the present case, the appellant, a recruitment agency, issued a notification inviting applications for the post of junior lecturers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies. The notification also stated that the allotment would be made according to candidates' rank in the merit list, based upon zonal preference.
Thus, if a candidate cannot get allotment in their first preferred zone because of a lack of merit in the zone that they belong to, they shall be considered for the second preferred option.
Further, per the instructions issued by the Andhra Pradesh Government, 30% of the posts were required to be filled first based on merit by locals and non-locals. The remaining 70% were to be filled with local reservations.
Now, Respondent nos.1 and 2 applied for a vacancy reserved for SC (Women). Respondent No. 1 was a local, and her first preference was Zone VI. Per contra, Zone VI was the second choice for Respondent no. 2. While Respondent no.2 obtained 35th rank, the other Respondent stood at 49th rank. Following this Respondent no.2 was recruited for Zone VI.
Consequently, a writ petition was moved by Respondent No. 1, claiming that the ratio has to be at 40:60. Therefore, being a local with her first preference under Zone VI should have been recruited as against Respondent No. 2. The High Court of Telangana approved of this view and thus allowed the petition. Against this backdrop, the matter reached the Top Court.
The Division Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and AS Bopanna emphasised the instructions mentioned above, which provided the methodology for filling vacancies. The Court observed that it is clear that all the departments are required to adopt 30:70 ratio for recruitment process.
“Therefore, the High Court fell into an error in not only adopting a wrong ratio but also fixing 70% first. On a reading of the notification, it is amply clear that a candidate is not non-suited from being considered in another zone subject to the only condition that it should form part of the option that she has exercised. This is exactly what respondent no.2 did.,” the Division bench added.
It went on to note that the Court should consider the relevant orders, rules, and enactments before finally deciding the case. Reliance was placed on Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305. Therein, the Court had marked that the Court has no expertise to decide whether a candidate fits a particular post. The same has to be decided by the Selection Committee. Further, the decision of the Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity.
In view of this above projection, the Court held that the appellant has correctly followed the mandate of law. Given this, the Court restored the recruitment in favour of respondent no. 2.
Case Title: THE TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD v. SALUVADI SUMALATHA & ANR.,
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 200