MANOJ KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 20-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 409 : 2024 INSC 126
Manoj Kumar 
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 2679 of 2024)
20 February 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant sought appointment as a primary school teacher. 
The issue arising for consideration in the present case relates the 
allocation of marks for additional qualifications, for which 10 marks 
had been prescribed.
Headnotes
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 
410
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
– 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.