Service Law – Recruitment – Allocation of marks for additional qualifications – An Institute issued an advertisement in March 2016 calling applications for appointment to the post of primary school teachers – For the allocation of marks, additional qualifications 10 marks had been prescribed – The appellant herein is aggrieved by the denial of 6 marks for the additional qualification of PG Degree that he held, on the ground that his PG Degree was not “in the relevant subject” – Propriety: Held: It is evident from the record that a candidate possessing a Post Graduate Diploma and a Post Graduate Degree would be entitled to allocation of 5 and 6 marks respectively for their additional qualification – However, a person possessing an MPhil degree or a professional qualification in the field would be entitled to allocation of
7 marks for their additional qualification – The additional qualifications provided under clauses ‘a’ to ‘d’ are under two categories – While ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘d’ relating to PG Diploma, PG Degree, and PhD are general qualifications providing for 5, 6, and 10 marks respectively, the category under ‘c’ relates to Professional Qualification in the field – This is where specialization is prescribed – If one adds the requirement of specialization to category ‘b’, i.e., PG Degree, then that category becomes redundant – The whole purpose of providing PG Degree independently and allocating a lesser quantum of 6 marks will be completely lost if such an interpretation is adopted – This can never be the purpose of prescribing distinct categories – The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court did not really analyse the prescription of additional qualifications and the distinct marks allocated to each of them, but confined their decision to restraint in judicial review and dismissed the appellant’s prayer – When a citizen alleges arbitrariness in executive action, the High Court must examine the issue, of course, within the context of judicial restraint in academic matters – While respecting flexibility in executive functioning, courts must not let arbitrary action pass through – For the reasons stated, this Court is of the opinion that the decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench are not sustainable. [Paras 12, 13]
Administration of Justice – Primary duty of constitutional courts – Addressing injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal administrative actions:
Held: While the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power – It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address – The injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions – This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is overarching constitutional purpose – This is how one has to read constitutional text – In public law proceedings, when it is realised that the prayer in the writ petition is unattainable due to passage of time, constitutional courts may not dismiss the writ proceedings on the ground of their perceived futility – In the life of litigation, passage of time can stand both as an ally and adversary – It is the duty of the Court to transcend the constraints of time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action – By taking the first step, the primary purpose and object of public law proceedings will be subserved. [Paras 19, 20]
Administration of Justice – Restitution of the wrongful action – discussed.
Administration of Justice – Alternative restitutory measure – Monetary compensation:
Held: In the instant case, in exercise of primary duty, the action of the respondents are set aside as being illegal and arbitrary – In furtherance of duty to provide a reasonable measure for restitution, the possibility was explored of directing the Institute to appoint the appellant as a primary teacher in any other school run by them – However, it seems that the only primary school run by the Institute is the one for which they sought to fill vacancies and it is closed since 2023 – In this situation, an alternative restitutory measure in the form of monetary compensation is considered – Thus, the Institute (respondent no. 2) is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. [Paras 25 and 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.