UNION OF INDIA versus UZAIR IMRAN & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 1135 · Decided: 11-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
UNION OF INDIA
v.
UZAIR IMRAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6668-6669 of 2023)
OCTOBER 11, 2023
[BELA M. TRIVEDI AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the concurrent fi ndings returned 
by the tribunal and the High Court that denial of appointment to the third 
respondent was unwarranted, is justifi ed.
Service Law – Appointment/selection – Post of Postal Assistant 
– Third respondent considered ineligible for the post placed, though 
placed in the merit list, sent for training but later excluded on basis of 
the certifi cate of educational qualifi cation, whereby he completed 10+ 
2 education from the vocational stream – Tribunal and the High Court 
decided in favour of the respondent – Correctness:
Held: Third respondent was not considered ineligible at the threshold 
based on the certifi cate but he went through selection process, was sent 
for training, and later excluded on certifi cate’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 certifi cate of educational qualifi cation, 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 certifi cate 
– There has been utter carelessness on part of the appellant in not producing 
the Amendment Rules and the gazette notifi cation before the tribunal – Third 
respondent cannot suff er 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 
[2023] 13 S.C.R. 1135 : 2023 INSC 901
1135
1136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
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 
qualifi cation required for the post – Determination of, by the court:
Held: It is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of 
two qualifi cations and/or to scrutinise a particular certifi cate and on the 
basis thereof, hold that the holder thereof satisfi es the eligibility criteria 
and, thus, is qualifi ed 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 fi gures 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 justifi cation by 
way of reason – If plausible justifi cation is provided, the courts would be 
loath to question the justifi cation but the justifi

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