Employer Must Follow Mandate Of Article 14 & Give Non-Arbitrary Reason For Not Offering Appointment To Successful Candidate: J&K&L HC
Referring to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India [1991 SCC (3) 47], The Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court held that an employer cannot without any reason decline to fill up a post without any lawful justification, which justification must not only be reasonable, should as well be not arbitrary and whimsical.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that “the employer or the State has to give justifiable non-arbitrary reasons for not offering such successful qualified candidates’ appointment, particularly, when the employer is State, as it is bound to act and follow the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution”.
Advocate T.H. Khawaja appeared for the Petitioner, whereas GA Sajad Ashraf appeared for the Respondent.
In this case, the Respondent-Sports Council through its Secretary invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up various posts including two posts of Drivers, one each available in Kashmir and Jammu Province respectively. The Petitioner claiming to be possessed of the eligibility prescribed in the Advertisement Notice applied for the said post of Drivers and came to be declared eligible on scrutiny of his documents, whereafter he came to be invited for an interview and a test by the Selection Committee. Although the Petitioner secured more marks than all the other four applicants who had participated in the selection process, the second Respondent was appointed in terms of the order. Hence, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the appointment of the second Respondent.
After considering the submission, the High Court observed that mere selection does not confer any right of appointment and an employer has a right to abandon the selection process at any time.
However, the High Court clarified that such selection cannot be done arbitrarily without any reasonable and just cause on the sweet will of the employer.
The Bench elucidated that the Respondent-Council after undertaking the process of selection qua the post of Drivers in question offered the appointment of one post to the second Respondent and denied the said offer to the Petitioner, that too, overlooking the superior merit of the Petitioner, since, the ineligibility of second Respondent.
The Bench therefore said that such inaction of the Respondent-Council cannot, but said to be arbitrary, capricious and whimsical besides colorable exercise and abuse of power to say the least.
Accordingly, the Bench allowed the petition and directed the Respondent-Council to offer an appointment to the Petitioner against the post of Driver and admit him to all the consequential benefits, to which he would be entitled thereto on the same lines the second Respondent have had been appointed as Driver in the Council and admitted all the consequential benefits thereof.
Cause Title: Ravinder Singh v. J & K State Sports Council and Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
