Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nilesh Kumar Swrankar vs Union Of India, (2025:Rj-Jd:12386) on 5 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:12386]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 712/2020
Nilesh Kumar Swrankar S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 28
Years, By Caste Swarnkar, Resident Of Village- Bhadsora, Tehsil-
Bhadsora, District- Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Ministry Of Atomic Energy, Government Of
India, New Delhi- Through Its Secretary.
2. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Nuclear Power
Corporation Of India Ltd., Mumbai (Maharashtra).
3. Director, Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd.,
Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site, Post- Anushakti, Via- Kota
(Rajasthan) Pin - 3233303.
4. Sunil Pareek, Staff Nurse, Employee State Insurance
Corporation, Adarsh Hospital, Nanda Nagar, Indore
(M.p.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar.
Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
05/03/2025
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of the
final selection list dated 15.12.2019 (Annex.4) for appointment of
Nurse-A (Male), in which respondent No.4's name was listed at Sr.
No.4 in the main list, however, petitioner's name was listed in the
waiting list at Sr. No.1, despite the fact that the petitioner's roll
number was mentioned at Sr. No. 1 when the result was declared.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, as per the
general instructions in column no.22 of the advertisement,
candidates working in central/state government, public sector
undertakings, or autonomous bodies (including NPCIL) are
required to produce an NOC from their current employer. Failure to
do so results in the rejection of their application, and such
candidates will not be allowed to appear in the written
[2025:RJ-JD:12386] (2 of 3) [CW-712/2020]
examination/skill test. Despite this, respondent no. 4, who did not
provide an NOC, was allowed to appear in the examination and
was ultimately selected at merit no. 1, while the petitioner was
placed on the waiting list. Therefore, respondent no. 4's selection
should be cancelled.
2.1. Further, it is argued that the petitioner successfully passed all
stages of the examination for the post and was empanelled at Sr.
No. 2 in the merit list dated 14.12.2019 (Annex. 3). He was
allowed to appear in the skill test, and after passing it, his merit
should remain unchanged. Given that two posts were advertised,
the petitioner should have been selected at merit no. 2.
Respondent no. 3's selection of respondent no. 4, while ignoring
the petitioner's selection, is illegal and should be quashed.
3. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I am
unable to persuade myself with the arguments that since the ex-
employer of the respondent No.4 - selected candidate, who
concededly higher in merit than the petitioner did not produce the
No Objection Certificate ('NOC'), therefore, the petitioner should
steel a march over him, notwithstanding the fact that he is lower
in the merit. It is the absolute discretion of the employer, who is
recruiting an employee to determine the merit as per the criteria
and the petitioner having participated in the same remained lower
in the merit as compared to the selected candidate i.e. respondent
No.4 and as regards the his not having obtained the NOC, if any,
from his ex-employer, the same is a matter between him and his
ex-employer and it is not the petitioner, who should get any
advantage of the same.
[2025:RJ-JD:12386] (3 of 3) [CW-712/2020]
4. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the respondents
No.2 & 3 has drawn my attention to a judgment rendered by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shailesh Kumar Sharma Vs. The
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4296/2015, decided on 09.08.2018, wherein, in somewhat
similar circumstance, the Coordinate Bench held as under:-
12. Admittedly, the petitioner had sought permission of IOCL while
processing his 'No Objection Certificate' from IOCL for participating
in the recruitment process initiated by the NPCIL for the post in
question. The said information given by the petitioner to IOCL is on
record as Annexure-5. The 'No Objection Certificate' thereafter, was
issued on 05.12.2014 by the IOCL, whereas the petitioner's
appointment was cancelled by the respondents vide communication
dated 04.04.2015, even when he otherwise stood selected, on the
ground of the petitioner not having the valid 'No Objection
Certificate' from the IOCL at the time of verification of his
documents.
13. This Court finds that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate
and duly selected by the NPCIL for the post of Scientific Assistant-C
in Mechanical Engineering in pursuance of the advertisement dated
15.05.2013, as his name found place in the select list, after
undergoing the selection process, on merit and issuance of the 'No
Objection Certificate' was in process. Therefore, any belated grant of
'No Objection Certificate' by the IOCL would not deprive the
petitioner from his right to be appointed on the post in question,
particularly, in light of the fact that the petitioner has narrated the
complete facts in his representation, which has been reproduced
hereinabove, while explaining in detail as to how he was pursuing his
'No Objection Certificate' with the IOCL well within the time during
the recruitment, but while the same being under process, he was
participating in the recruitment process in question with the due
permission of the IOCL."
5. In view of the observations made in judgment, ibid, as well
as my preceding discussion, no grounds to interfere are made out.
6. Dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
79-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
