In a recent ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court emphasized that employers cannot deny appointments to deserving candidates without any valid and cogent reason.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani presided over the case and directed the concerned department to offer the appointment to the eligible candidate.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner, Ravinder Singh, had applied for the position of driver in the Department of Youth Services and Sports (“YSS”) back in 2014. After responding to the advertisement notification and undergoing the scrutiny of his documents, he was declared eligible and appeared before the Selection Committee, where he performed well. However, due to the delay in finalizing the selection process, the Petitioner approached the department to inquire about the result.
To his surprise, the Petitioner discovered that he had obtained higher marks than all the other candidates who participated in the selection process. Despite his superior merit, another candidate was appointed while being overage, violating the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Advertisement Notice.
Observations by the Court:
Justice Iqbal addressed the issue of a candidate's rights in a selection process and questioned whether an employer, particularly a state entity, can make appointments arbitrarily, disregarding the merit determined in the selection process. It was emphasized that mere selection does not automatically confer the right to appointment, but employers cannot act arbitrarily without justifiable reasons.
It was highlighted that in a country governed by the rule of law, employers or the state must provide reasonable and non-arbitrary justifications for not offering appointments to successful candidates. The Court referred to Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates fairness and equality in the decision-making process.
The Bench further stated that employers cannot decline to fill a position without lawful justification. The reasons provided must not only be reasonable but also avoid arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical decision-making. The High Court deemed the inaction of the Respondent council as arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical, reflecting a colourable exercise and abuse of power.
Based on these findings, the High Court allowed the Petitioner’s plea and directed the YSS department to offer him the appointment as a driver, granting him all the associated benefits.
The decision of the Court:
Accordingly, yhe petition was allowed.
Case Name: Ravinder Singh vs J & K State Sports Council and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Javed Iqbal Wani
Case No.: SWP No. 1015/2015
Advocate of the Appellant: Adv. Mr. T.H. Khawaja
Advocate of the Respondent: Adv. Mr. Sajad Ashraf
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
