LexT. JAYAKUMAR versus A. GOPU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ [2008] 13 S.C.R. 791 T. JAYAKUMAR A v. A. GOPU & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5766 of 2008) ' ) SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 B [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] Service Law - Selection/Appointment - Application of candidate not in order and another application not submitted within time - Candidate permitted to participate in selection c process - Not selected - Challenging selection/appointment of the successful candidate -Authority taking the plea that his applications were not acceptable being not in order/within time - Held: Permission to participate in selection process cannot ...... be a bar for holding the candidate ineligible for selection at a D later stage - Principle of estoppel is not applicable to such cases - In the facts, decision of Authority for not accepting the applications of the candidate, was not unreasonable or arbi- trary- High Court acted beyond the scope of judicial review in holding that the authority should have treated the second ap- E plication as part and parcel of first application - However, in the peculiar facts of the case, direction issued to Authority concerned, to find suitable post for respondent No. 1 and if such post not available, to accommodate him in the next va- cancy for the post - Estoppel - Judicial Review. F Respondent No. 2-Authority, issued notice for filling up the pqst of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM). Respondent No. 1 submitted his application for the same within time. But the application was unsigned. Therefore, he submitted second application. But the same G was not submitted within time. Respondent No. 1 was called for the interview. Ultimately appellant was selected and appointed for the post. Respondent No. 1 challenged his appointment. Central Administrative Tribunal allowed 791 H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A the application holding that having called respondent No. 1 for interview, it was not open to the Authority to exclude him from consideration on the plea that his application was not in order/received beyond time. High Court dis- missed the writ petition holding that the Authority ought " ,. B . to have accepted the second application of respondent No. 1, as deemed to have been received within time. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1 The concerned Authority had not exer- cised its discretion unreasonably and arbitrarily in reject- ing both the applications submitted by respondent No.1. [Para 12] [798-E-F] 1.2 There is no principle of law under which once a D candidate is allowed participation in the selection pro- .,.... cess, the selection authority is precluded from examin- ing whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be over- E looked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light. It F is surely open to the Tribunal to examine whether the rea- son assigned by the selection authority for holding a can- didate ineligible for selection was valid or unreasonable and arbitrary. If the reason for excluding a candidate from the selection process is found to be unreasonable or ar- G bitrary, the Tribunal may certainly intervene, but if the rea- son itself is valid, the tribunal cannot interfere simply be- cause the candidate was allowed participation in the se- lection process by being called for interview. The prin- ciple of estoppel has no application in such a case. [Para H 10] [797 F-H, 798 A-BJ T. JAYAKUMAR v. A. GOPU & ANR. 793 ' 1.3 In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the A decision of the concerned authority, not to accept ariy of the two applications of respondent No. 1, the first being invalid for want of signature and the other being beyond > time, was totally unreasonable and arbitrary. As a matter of fact, the High Court has not come to any such finding, B and yet the High Court observed that the second applica- tion ought to have been treated as 'part and parcel' of the first application and thus substituted its own view in the matter for the view taken by the respondent-Authority. Such an approach might have been permissible for the c departmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.