Union of India vs Uzair Imran & Ors.

Held: Third respondent was not considered ineligible at the threshold based on the certificate but he went through selection process, was sent for training, and later excluded on certificate’s connotation – Unfettered discretion, unaccountable approach and arbitrariness in State action are antithesis to Art. 14, and, particularly when two views could possibly emerge looking at the certificate of educational qualification, with both views not being wholly unworthy of acceptance, fairness in administrative procedure demanded that the appellant-Department ought to have given reason – It was highly improper for the appellant to reject the candidature of the third respondent outright in the absence of a proper appreciation of the certificate – There has been utter carelessness on part of the appellant in not producing the Amendment Rules and the gazette notification before the tribunal – Third respondent cannot suffer for such carelessness and should be given what is due to him – He has been discriminated against and arbitrarily deprived of the selection – Furthermore, third respondent has crossed the maximum age for entry into public employment – Appellant being responsible for the lis being prolonged in excess of two decades not worth to remand the matter – In view thereof, issuance of directions to appoint the third respondent, initially on probation on the post of Postal Assistant, and if no post is vacant, a supernumerary post to be created. [Para 16, 17, 20, 21] Service Law – Appointment – Equivalence of the educational qualification required for the post – Determination of, by the court: Held: It is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular certificate and on the basis thereof, hold that the holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for appointment – It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to participate in the selection process – When evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which tilts the balance in favour of one party, the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence. [Para 14] Constitution of India – Art. 16 – Right to claim public employment by the candidate:

Held: Candidate has no legal right to claim public employment – Candidate has only a right to be considered therefor – Once a candidate is declared ineligible to participate in the selection process at the threshold and if he still wishes to participate in the process perceiving that his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected, it is for him to work out his remedy – However, if the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list, though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment, he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment – He has a reasonable expectation of being appointed having regard to his position in the merit list could arise – Employer-State would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out without rhyme or reason – Law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason – If plausible justification is provided, the courts would be loath to question the justification but the justification must be rational and justifiable, and not whimsical or capricious, warranting non-interference – Arts. 12, 14. [Para 15]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 9 SCC

507 : [2006] 3 SCR 689; Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 55 : [2018] 1 SCR 695 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES