NARENDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 18-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 311
311
NARENDER SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2022)
JANUARY 18, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Selection – Haryana Public Service Commission
(PSC) advertised for post of Assistant Professor – Appellant who
was JBT Teacher in Education Department applied for the said post
– As per advertisement, candidate was required to submit NOC from
its appointing authority, at the time of interview – He applied for
issuance of NOC from the authority – He successfully appeared in
written examination – At the time of interview, he had to submit the
NOC – Appellant sent reminders to the authority but he was not
issued NOC – He filed writ petition – By way of interim order, High
Court directed to allow him to appear in interview – He was
provisionally interviewed and his result was kept in sealed cover –
Meanwhile, when matter came up for hearing in High Court, the
sealed cover was opened and it was found that appellant had
obtained marks higher than the last candidate selected – Thereafter,
result of final selection was declared – PSC did not appoint him in
absence of NOC – Prior to the appointment orders, appellant
received NOC from the authority and submitted with the PSC –
Despite that he was not appointed – High Court dismissed writ
petition filed by him – On appeal, held: Once it is found that there
was no lapse and/or delay on the part of the appellant and/or there
was no fault of the appellant in not producing the NOC at the
relevant time and when it was produced immediately on receipt of
the same and that too before the appointments were made and when
it was found that the appellant was a more meritorious candidate
than the last candidate appointed, to deny appellant the appointment
was not justifiable at all – He cannot be punished for no fault of
him – As regards respondent no.4, he was appointed after following
due procedure of selection – There was no fault on part of respondent
no.4 when he was appointed and thereafter, he continued in service
for three years – Therefore, it would not be justifiable, to disturb
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
him at this stage – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, in exercise of the powers under Art.142 of the Constitution of
India, to do substantial justice, it is directed that while appointing
the appellant on the post of Assistant Professor, respondent No.4
may not be disturbed – The State Government is directed to continue
respondent No.4 and he be accommodated on any other vacant
post of Assistant Professor – Constitution of India – Art.142.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that pursuant to the interim
order dated 07.12.2017, the appellant was interviewed
provisionally. However, his result was kept in a sealed cover.
Thus, during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition and despite
the fact that pursuant to the interim order dated 07.12.2017, the
appellant was provisionally interviewed, the Public Service
Commission declared the result of final selection in respect of
the interviews conducted from 12th to 14th December, 2017 on
15.12.2017 and the actual appointments were made on 12.07.2018.
In the meantime, the appellant received the NOC on 06.06.2018
from his employer and immediately on receipt of the same, the
same was produced by him before the Public Service Commission
on 08.06.2018, i.e., even before the actual appointments were
made by the Public Service Commission, which were made on
12.07.2018. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there
was no delay and/or any fault on the part of the appellant. Whatever
was the lapse and/or the delay was, it was on the part of the
employer of the appellant, who did not issue the NOC though
applied on 22.03.2016 and which was issued only on 06.06.2018
and that too after the intervention of the High Court. Even the
Single Judge also noted that there was a delay and/or lapse on
the part of the District Elementary Education Officer,
and therefore, even the Single Judge also imposed the cost of
Rs.50,000/- on the employer of the appellant. [Para 7.2]
[319-B-F]
1.2 Once it is found that there was no lapse and/or delay on
the part of the appellant and /or there was no fault of the appellant
in not producing the NOC at the relevant time and when it was
produced immediately on receipt of the same and that too before
the appointments were made and when it is found that the last
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
ca

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