28 Years After Applying, Man To Get Job In Postal Dept At 50 Years Age Due To Supreme Court's Order
"If the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process, he does have a limited right of being accorded fair treatment," Court held.
In an interesting case, the Supreme Court recently directed the Postal Department to appoint a man, presently aged 50 years, to the post of Postal Assistant for which he applied in the year 1995. This was after the Supreme Court found that the Department was in error in holding the man ineligible for the post. Though the man, named Ankur Gupta, was placed in the merit list of candidates for...
In an interesting case, the Supreme Court recently directed the Postal Department to appoint a man, presently aged 50 years, to the post of Postal Assistant for which he applied in the year 1995.
This was after the Supreme Court found that the Department was in error in holding the man ineligible for the post. Though the man, named Ankur Gupta, was placed in the merit list of candidates for the post and was selected for pre-induction training, he was later excluded. The reason for the exclusion was that he completed 10+2 education from the "vocational stream".
He and other similarly affected candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1996, which ruled in their favour in 1999. Challenging the CAT's order, the Department approached the High Court in 2000. Seventeen years later, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, and upheld the CAT's order. A review as also filed in the High Court which also got dismissed in 2021, following which the Department approached the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, while dismissing the Department's petition, observed that though a candidate cannot claim a vested right to appointment, once he is included in the merit list, he has a limited right of being accorded a fair treatment.
“Once a candidate is declared ineligible to participate in the selection process at the threshold and if he still wishes to participate in the process perceiving that his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected, it is for him to work out his remedy in accordance with law. However, if the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment, he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment.”
Here, the Court noted that the candidate was not rejected at the threshold. Instead, the Department had considered the respondent eligible, allowed him to take part in the various tests in connection with the selection process, interviewed him, placed his name quite high in the merit list, and thereafter sent him for 15 days' pre-induction training. It was after these processes that he was shown the door.
In this backdrop, the Court said :
“The employer, if it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out from the range of appointment, as distinguished from the zone of consideration, without rhyme or reason. The employer-State being bound by Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason.”
Factual Background
The Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) Recruitment Rules, 1990 was amended vide a Notification dated 31st January, 1992. The Schedule to the 1990 Rules outlined the educational qualifications required for the post of Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants for direct recruits as “10+2 standard or 12th class pass of recognised University/ Board of School Education/Board of Secondary Education”.
However, after the amendment, candidates who had pursued their intermediate education in “vocational stream” were excluded from being considered for the aforementioned post.
This being the position of the recruitment rules, the Superintendent of Post Office, Kheri through a letter dated 17th April, 1995 requisitioned from the District Employment Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri a list of eligible candidates for the purpose of recruitment of 10 (ten) Postal Assistants in Lakhimpur Kheri postal division for the year 1995. According to the requisition, the candidates were required to have qualified in the intermediate examination from the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Council, Allahabad or equivalent. Apart from such requisition, applications were also invited through an advertisement dated 12th June 1995.
All the respondents herein, among other candidates, went through the selection process. A merit list was notified, and the names of the respondents figured quite high in the merit list, following which all of them were attached to the Kheri Post Office for 15 days pre-induction training. The same was to be followed by a long-term training.
The origin of what triggered this present litigation arose when the Chief Postmaster General sent a letter dated 22nd March 1996 to various Postmasters General and it was conveyed that certificates issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education should be admitted unless “these are marked as vocational stream or vocational.” This resulted in holding back of the respondents, who were not sent for long-term training.
By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the other candidates lost interest in the service and the case was related only to the appointment of the 3rd respondent (Ankur Gupta).
Court's Findings
As the outset, the Court observed that the amendment rules were duly published in the Gazette of India dated 15th February 1992.
The Court also noted that neither in the letter for requisitioning names of eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange nor in the advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates was it mentioned that the candidates clearing the requisite examination conducted by a recognized University or Board through vocational stream would stand excluded.
However, the Court reiterated the well-settled law that if qualifications mentioned in an advertisement inviting applications are at variance with statutorily prescribed qualifications, it is the latter that would prevail (Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission and Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh).
It also emphasised that none has any legal right to claim public employment. In terms of Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Indian Constitution, a candidate has only a right to be considered therefor.
Notwithstanding, the Court opined that given the stages of the process that the candidate has successfully crossed, he may not have a vested right of appointment but a reasonable expectation of being appointed having regard to his position in the merit list could arise. The Court explained:
“In the facts of the present case, the stage of declaration of ineligibility seems to us to turn the tide in favour of the third respondent. If the appellant declared the third respondent as ineligible based on the appellant's appreciation of the educational had qualification of the third respondent at the threshold, the situation would have entirely been different. However, it was not at the threshold that the third respondent was considered ineligible.”
Adverting to the respondent's contention that the certificate which is partly in vernacular also bears at its foot the remark 'Regular' in English and that certificate signifies regular stream and not vocational stream, the Court observed:
“There is little doubt that the decision to treat the third respondent as ineligible was based on the certificate; however, there is no gainsaying that the certificate produced by the third respondent in support of his claim that he had qualified in the relevant examination and, thus, was eligible to be considered for appointment, did leave room for two views…..It was, thus, highly improper for the appellant to reject the candidature of the third respondent outright in the absence of a proper appreciation of the certificate.”
Based on these facts and circumstances, the Court, while disposing off the appeal, categorically held:
“The third respondent, in our view, has been discriminated against and arbitrarily deprived of the fruit of selection. At this distance of time, it would not be worthwhile to order a remand particularly when the appellant is responsible for the lis being prolonged in excess of two decades. There has been utter carelessness on its part in not producing the Amendment Rules and the gazette notification before the Tribunal.”
In this backdrop, invoking the special powers under Article 142, the Court directed the Union to offer appointment to the third respondent, initially on probation, on a post of Postal Assistant (for which he was selected) within a month from date.
However, the Court ordered that he cannot either claim salary arrears or seniority pursuant to the initial notification issued in 1995. Noting that the age of superannuation for the post is 60 years and that the candidate will have only less than ten years of service left - which is less than the qualifying service for pension- the Court ordered that he should be deemed as eligible for retiral benefits.
Case Title: Union Of India V. Uzair Imran & Ors., Diary No. 21319/2022
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 882