# Recruitment Archives

23 Mar

Supreme Court: Employer is not permitted to alter the advertised qualifications in the middle of the selection process

Prime Legal

Blog, blog # Recruitment, #advertisement, #employee

Case Title: Anil Kishore pandit versus The state of Bihar and others

Case No: Civil Appeal No.1566 of 2024

Decided on: February 02,2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Ms.Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Facts of the case:

The District Employment Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah, issued a memo on October 13, 2011, requesting applications from qualified individuals for the position of amins according to a contract. For the Economic Backward Class 3 category, the age cut off date for the District level vacancy was set at 40 years old as of January 1, 2011 for both men and women. The appellant responded to the October 13, 2011, advertisement by applying for the specified position. There is no question about the appellant’s age as of January 1, 2011, which was 39 years, 11 months, and 27 days. That is to say the petitioner was eligible. The age requirements for the advertised topic. According to the records, on November 15, 2011, another notice was posted on the Notice Board of the Collectorate, West Champaran, in response to a letter 4 that was later sent by the Principal Secretary of the Revenue and L.R. Department, Government of Bihar. The notice stated that interested parties could apply until November 30, 2011.The appellant showed up on January 22, 2012, for the written exam. After that, his name was put at Serial No. 2 on a merit list that was created for counseling. On December 4, 2012, the District establishment created a selection list. His name was listed under Serial No. 9, while Respondent No. 8’s name was listed under Serial No. 11. The appellant’s candidature was withdrawn due to his age, as stated in the notes column. The appellant, who was upset by the aforementioned, unsuccessfully requested that the outcomes be corrected in a representation made to the District Magistrate.

Appellant Contentions:-

The appellant has submitted the representation to the district court for reconsidering of the result. But there is no use. Then the appellant has filed the writ petition before the High court with a direction issued to the collector to examine his grievance. That the entire selection process has been carried on basis of treating the cut off. Learned counsel for the appellant has said that the division bench ignored the date of advertisement which was mentioned the cut off in 1st January,2011.The respondents changing the cut off was not given in the advertisement but was places in notice board if collector office. It was not the procedure to be done.

Respondent Contentions:-

The respondent did not issue a communication after giving public advertisement fixing the cut off date for the ae of candidates. It was based on discussion which was done internally with in the department and they decided to give a fresh notice changing the date .The earlier advertisement which was given by the respondent gas been applied by the appellant. Based on the advertisement his age was permitted . He was in starting number in selection list and he was also appointed for the post .

Court Analysis and Judgement:-

The court said that the impunged judgement has been quashed and set aside. It is deemed appropriate to set the clock back and uphold the earlier order passed by the respondent appointing the appellant to the post of amin by the reckoning age of candidates in EBC category as 40 years. The appointment of the appellant has been restored from the date of his initial appointment without any break. And the appellant would give all the notional benefits except the actual wages. He will not be discharged from his duties to the said post for all these years. A letter has been given that the reappointment of the appellant to the post which was issued by the respondent on the above terms which was given within two weeks from today. The appeal has been allowed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement

2 Mar

Granting of Permanent Commission (PC) to the Short Service Commissioned Officers (SSCO’s) in the Indian Navy must be executed without any prejudices: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog # Recruitment, # Supreme Court, #Indian Navy, #Justice D Y Chandrachud, #Permanent Commission, #principlesofnaturaljustice, #SSCO's

The issue in this case was regarding the grant of Permanent Commission (PC) to Short Service Commission Officers (SSCO’s) in the Indian Navy. The conflict arose when the Policy Letters dated 26 September 2008 was issued, which stipulated that only women from certain branches (JAG, Education and Naval Architecture), would be considered for grant of PC with a prospective application.

The case of Cdr. Seema Chaudhary versus Union of India and Others evolved as an aftermath of the Union of India vs Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja case. In the case of Annie Nagaraja, the Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja along with other officers challenged the above Policy Letter as being discriminatory and based on unreasonable grounds. The Court noted that the statutory bar on the enrolment of women in the Indian Navy was lifted by the notifications issued in the year 1991 and 1998. Moreover, this Court held that the policy decision of the Union Government dated 25 February 1999 would govern the conditions of service of SSCOs including women officers in regard to the grant of PCs. The Court held that the impugned PL being prospective and restricting it to specified cadres was invalid. Consequently, directed that all SSCOs in the Education, Law and Logistic Cadres who were “presently in service”, shall be considered for the grant of PC.

In the instant case, the petitioner Cdr. Seema Chaudhary is a JAG Branch officer recruited on Short Service Commission in 2007. Even after many years of service, she was denied PC due to lack of vacancies. The petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which issued directions, considering the petitioner along with the Law Cadre officers from previous batches.

The petitioner aggrieved by the directions issued by AFT, filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that considering her candidature alongside the officers of previous batches was prejudice to her appointment.

The respondents contended that such a consideration with subsequent batches was made in order to ensure that a fair opportunity was granted to all concerned officers and to widen the field of consideration.

The Supreme Court hearing the contentions of both the parties analyzed the directions issued by AFT. The court noted that by considering the candidature of the petitioner for the grant of PC along with the batches of 2011 and 2014, the AFT has deviated from the judgement passed by this court. Further, stated that to do so would amount to introducing a condition to the Lieutenant Commander Annie Nagaraja case. The court held that any directions which de-hors the judgment of the Court could not be issued.

The Court also clarified that the increase in the vacancies which is created to accommodate the petitioner shall not create any precedence for the future. The court, thus, exercised its powers under Article 142 to ensure principles of Natural Justice and Equality.

Judgement reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

15 Sep

Madras High Court Directs The Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services board to appoint a committee and review for the recruitment of an Fireman.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog # Recruitment, #Committee, #Fireman, #MadrasHighCourt

Title: M. Navaneetha Krishnan Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board.

Decided On: September 14, 2023.

W.A.(MD)No.1351 of 2023.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy.

Facts:

The Government of Tamil Nadu issued notification for the post of Fireman in Category-5 in Fire Subordinate Service. Recruitment to the said post is governed by the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which are known as Tamil Nadu Fire Subordinate Service Rules, as per which, the post is to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. The petitioner considering himself fully qualified to be appointed to the said post submitted an application in April 2019. Pursuant to the application, the appellant was allowed to participate in the selection process and based on his marks in the written examinations, physical examination etc., the appellant was selected for the said post and his name figures in the select list of 191 persons selected for the said post. However, even though 178 out of 191 selected persons were sent for training with effect from 07.07.2020, the appellant was not called for training. Upon enquiry, the appellant was informed that on account of his antecedents being involved in criminal cases, he was not being sent for training. Therefore, the appellant made a detailed representation to the respondents on 16.07.2020. Upon the said representation, the impugned order dated 27.07.2020 was passed communicating the reasons for his nonappointment. The impugned order states that an adverse police verification report regarding character and antecedents have been received in the case of the appellant that two cases namely a case in Manamadurai Police Station Crime No.188 of 2010 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 302 of IPC and Manamadurai Police Station Crime No.294 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 342 and 506(1) of IPC. On account of the said adverse report, the appellant was informed that he could not be appointed as Fireman. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Court held that while assessing the character and antecedent, since both cases have been taken and a decision has been arrived at, and since we have held that one of the cases that is Crime No.188 of 2010, in which, the petitioner is said to have involved in the offence when he was a juvenile, cannot be taken into account at all, we are unable to sustain the order impugned in the writ petition and consequently the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be upheld. The Court had given certain directions.

The order passed by the learned Single in W.P.(MD)No.11110 of2020, dated 24.03.2022 shall stand set aside.
The order of the second respondent dated 27.07.2020 impugned inthe writ petition is set aside.
The first and second respondents through the concernedcommittee shall review the case of the appellant by considering the case in Crime No.294 of 2019 alone and shall independently take a decision as to the suitability of the petitioner with reference to the Rules in force as on the relevant date.
Needless to say that if the petitioner is found eligible, he shall beforthwith appointed and be included in the next batch of training in which case, the petitioner will be entitled for all the benefits from the date of However, his seniority will be on the bottom of the batch in which the petitioner was selected.
If the committee still finds the petitioner is ineligible, the said ordershall be duly communicated to him.
The entire exercise shall be carried on within a period of threemonths from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

23 Aug

ITBP Recruitment Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Disqualification of Applicant with Tattoo on Right Forearm

Prime Legal

Blog # Recruitment

Monu

Vs.

Union of India

2023:PHHC:107962

Coram HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

DATE: 21.08.2023

FACTS:

The essential details required for the resolution of the current petition are as follows: The petitioner, in response to Advertisement No.1 of 2017, submitted an application for the position of Constable in I.T.B.P. The petitioner successfully passed all stages of assessment, including the Physical Endurance Test/Physical Standard Test conducted on January 24, 2019. However, the petitioner was deemed ineligible due to a tattoo located on their right arm. The disqualification was based on the advertisement’s stipulation that candidates with tattoos on their right arms could not be selected.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

Notably, the Allahabad High Court has adopted a contrasting perspective on similar cases and has instructed the entities responsible for recruitment to evaluate the eligibility of candidates after the removal of their tattoos. As an illustration, earlier this year in May, the High Court instructed the Central authorities to evaluate the candidacy of an individual who participated in the 2018 BSF Head Constable (Radio Operator) examination. This instruction applied provided that the candidate takes steps to eliminate the tattoo. The Court directed the Central authorities that if the petitioner or candidate removes the specific tattoo in question, then this particular constraint should not impede their selection for the administrative positions they had applied for.

Written by- Srijan Garg

monu-vs-union-of-india-and-others-cwp-23003-2021-punjab-and-haryana-high-court-488130

22 Jun

Madras High Court Directs DGP to issue necessary appointment orders to the Constable applicant.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog # Constable, # DGP, # Recruitment, MADRAS HIGH COURT

Case Title:

The State of Tamil Nadu and Anrs.     …Appellants
                         Vs
S.Govindaraj                                        … Respondent

Date of Decision:

Reserved on: 08.03.2023

Delivered on: 16.06.2023

Coram:

                THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
                                          AND
       THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

Citation:

W.A.No. 2746 of 2018 and CMP.No. 22611 of 2018

Introduction:

The writ petitioner/respondent had participated in the recruitment process for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable and passed the written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and medical test and he was disqualified since he was acquitted in a criminal case viz.Crime No.46 of 2011. The 3^rd appellant herein has passed rejection order in Na.Ka.No. A2(3)/49777/2012 dated 03.01.2013.

Facts:

The petitioner had passed the written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and medical test, he was disqualified on the basis of his involvement in ciriminal case and acquittal on the beneift of doubt. Challenging the same, the respondent has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5718 of 2013, the learned Judge allowed the said writ petition directing the appellants herein to select the writ petitioner in the selection process. Challenging the same, the appellant/Government has preferred the instant Writ Appeal.

Issues:

Whether the Recruiting board could disqualify the petitioner
from the appointment?

Whether the claim of privilege by the respondents is justified or not?

Legal Analysis:

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
appellants would submit that though the petitioner had passed the
written test, physical endurance test, physical efficiency test and
medical test, he was disqualified on the basis of his involvement in
ciriminal case and acquittal on the beneift of doubt. The learned Single
Judge without considering the fact that a person acquittal on benefit of
doubt or discharged from his criminal case, can still be considered as
qualified for selection to Police Service, has allowed the writ petition
filed by the appellant.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the criminal case initiated against the respondent ended in acquittal. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the said aspect and quashed the rejection order passed by the 3rd appellant. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the post on which the writ petitioner is seeking the appointment is the post of Police Constable Grade II. It cannot be disputed that the duty of the constable is to maintain law and order. Therefore, it is expected that he should be honest, trustworthy and that his integrity is above board and that he is reliable. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity, as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary any act in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.

Judgement:

It is clear from the records that the criminal case registered against the
respondent/writ petitioner had ended in honourable acquittal. The Writ Court has rightly considered these aspects in proper perspective and directed the department to complete the selection process and issue suitable appointment order to the writ petitioner.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. Accordingly, this
Writ Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the order of the Writ Court
dated 11.11.2016 made in W.P.No.5718 of 2013. The appellants are
directed to consider the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioner
as laid down in paragraph 19(a) of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra and also in the light of the communication of the Director General of Police dated 17.12.2015 and issue necessary appointment orders to the respondent/writ petitioner, subject to the antecedents and character of the writ petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

Pending the recruitment process, if a candidate is discharged from the criminal case or acquitted in the criminal case, he/she shall be eligible to be considered for the next recruitment process as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules.” Since the candidate was eligible to the recruitment process he can’t be denied from recruitment process. So the court interpreted the case in right way and gave a good Judgement.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement