Recruitment Process Can't Be Challenged At Any Stage Of Time, However Genuine The Grievance Is : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that in a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, however may be the genuineness of the grievance, at any stage of time as there has to be a closure to the process of recruitment.

The bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh was considering a civil appeal assailing Calcutta High Court's order dated December 22, 2008. ("impugned judgment").

In the impugned judgment, the High Court had upheld Tribunal's order of dismissing his OA wherein he had sought directions for foregoing the police verification report with regards to appointment to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer (Civil).

While dismissing the appeal, the bench said,

"The fact that the advertisement was of the year 1999 and we are in 2022, i.e. 24 years hence itself is an impediment in any relief to the appellant. However, that itself would not non-suit the appellant as learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is now about 45 years plus hence it is submitted that he still has time to serve out. The fact however, remains that the impediment in the way of the appellant was the lack of police verification report which subsequently went against the appellant."

The Court further said that the appellant waiting for seven long years for getting an appointment letter and then filing an OA before the State Administrative Tribunal was itself a ground to non suit the appellant.

"In our view, in a recruitment process, a candidate cannot be permitted to approach for redressal, howsoever may be the genuineness of the grievance, at any stage of time as there has to be a closure to the process of recruitment. In case of an advertisement dated 1999, the appellant cannot be permitted to plead that he was waiting for seven long years for getting an appointment letter and then woke up to file the O.A. before the State Administrative Tribunal. This itself is a ground to non-suit the appellant," Court said.

Factual Background

In January, 1999, an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer (Civil) in which the appellant appeared and cleared the medical fitness test. However his appointment could not take place as a police verification report was not received. He waited for about 7 years for getting the appointment letter and thereafter filed an OA before the State Administrative Tribunal that issued directions to consider his OA.

On September 1, 2006, Public Works Department put only one aspect against the appellant i.e. non-receipt of police verification report.

In the second OA filed by the appellant, he sought a direction for foregoing the police verification report as he had suffered for about eight years which was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated February 28, 2008 on the ground that the appellant had not made the representation to know the fate of the police verification report.

The appellant on June 26, 2007 made a representation assailing the Tribunal's decision dated February 28, 2008 before the Calcutta High Court which was dismissed on December 22, 2008 on the ground that the appellant was a Bangladesh national.

Case Title: Sankar Mondal v State of West Bengal| Civil Appeal No.1924/2010

Coram: Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh

Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Ranjan Mukherjee

Counsel For Respondent: Advocate(s) Suhaan Mukerji, Raghent Basant, Nikhil Parikshith, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda, Sayandeep Pahari, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli

Click Here To Read/Download Order