The court’s legal analysis in a recent case delved into the complexities surrounding the delay in issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a job appointment. The appellant faced challenges due to the employer’s delays, resulting in a cost imposition despite timely application. Explore the nuances of the court’s decision and its implications on the appointment process.
Facts
- The appellant filed a writ petition seeking appointment but the Single Judge refused to pass any order in the appellant’s favor.
- The High Court dismissed the Letter Patent Appeal filed by the appellant against the Single Judge’s decision.
- The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decisions of the Single Judge and dismissed the LPA.
- The appellant is now appealing the High Court’s decision in the present case.
- The High Court observed that the appellant waited too long to seek relief after the appointment process had already been completed.
- Despite imposing a cost of Rs.50,000 on the employer for delay in issuing the NOC, the High Court did not grant relief to the appellant.
- An interim order was passed by the High Court allowing the appellant to be provisionally interviewed if within the zone of consideration.
- The appellant applied for the post of Assistant Professor (History) in Haryana in 2016.
- He had requested a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from his appointing authority back in March 2016.
- Despite clearing the written examination, the NOC was not issued to him in time for the interviews.
- The Public Service Commission did not appoint him without the NOC, even though his result was provisionally kept in a sealed cover after an interim order.
- The appellant filed multiple writ petitions seeking direction for his appointment, citing that he had now submitted the NOC and was meritorious based on the marks obtained.
- The Department of Elementary Education delayed issuing the NOC despite reminders and extensions of deadlines for form submission.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Arguments
- The appellant argues that there was no delay or fault on their part in obtaining the necessary NOC for the job application.
- The delay in issuing the NOC was attributed to the employer, a Government authority.
- The appellant contends that they applied for the NOC in a timely manner before the application deadline.
- The Public Service Commission stated that they were not responsible for the delay in issuing the NOC.
- An inquiry was initiated by the State of Haryana regarding the delay in processing and issuing the NOC.
- Despite reminders, the NOC was not issued in time, leading the appellant to file a writ petition to obtain it.
- The NOC was eventually issued before the final appointments were made.
- The Single Judge imposed a cost on the employer for the delay but did not order the appellant’s appointment.
- The Single Judge suggested that the appellant could seek appropriate remedy against the employer for the delay.
- The appellant contends that they should have been appointed to the position for which a candidate with lower marks was selected.
- The appellant has scored more marks than respondent No.4 who is appointed.
- The respondent No.4 has been serving on the post since 2018.
- The respondent’s counsel requested the Court to protect the respondent’s service under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
- There are currently a number of vacant posts in the department.
- The delay in issuing the NOC by the District Elementary Education Officer, Jhajjar was noted, as the application was made in 2016 but issued only on 06.06.2018.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- The appellant, during the pendency of the writ petition, received the NOC on 06.06.2018 and immediately produced it on 08.06.2018 before the Public Service Commission.
- There was no delay or fault on the part of the appellant in producing the NOC as the employer delayed its issuance, which was only done after the High Court’s intervention.
- Considering the circumstances of respondent No.4, who has been in service for more than three years, with family responsibilities and age factors, it is not justifiable to disturb his appointment.
- The appellant applied for NOC in advance, anticipating its requirement for appointment as per advertisement guidelines.
- The appellant was provisionally interviewed as per the interim order dated 07.12.2017, and it was noted by the Single Judge that the delay in NOC issuance was due to the District Elementary Education Officer.
- The Single Judge and the Division Bench did not exercise jurisdiction to direct the appellant’s appointment despite being found more meritorious than respondent No.4.
- The delay/lapse by the employer of the appellant resulted in a cost imposition of Rs.50,000 as noted by the Single Judge.
- In the present circumstances, where the appellant followed due procedure and was not at fault for the delay in NOC issuance, denying his appointment is unjustifiable.
- The appellant’s appointment followed the proper selection procedure, and respondent No.4, though having less marks, was appointed on merits at that time.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Decision
- The State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission are directed to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor (History).
- The appellant should be appointed without disturbing respondent No.4, who will be continued in service and accommodated in another vacant post of Assistant Professor (History).
- The appointment process should be completed within two weeks from the date of this order.
- The impugned judgments and orders from both the Division Bench of the High Court and the Single Judge are quashed and set aside, except for the costs imposed by the Single Judge which are maintained.
- There will be no additional costs incurred.
- Pending applications are also disposed of.
- The appellant will not receive back wages but will have continuity in service for the purpose of seniority and pay fixation.
Case Title: NARENDER SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2022 INSC 59)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000321-000321 / 2022
