Delve into the intricate legal analysis by the court regarding the consideration of additional marks for NCC certificates in a crucial recruitment case. The court’s interpretation of the advertisement requirements, submission of documents, and the implications on candidate eligibility provides valuable insights into the legal framework governing such scenarios. Stay tuned to unravel the detailed legal reasoning behind the court’s decision in this significant case.
Facts
- The original writ petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court after his representation for additional marks was rejected.
- The Division Bench of the High Court condoned the delay of three years and allowed the appeal, directing the petitioner’s appointment as Constable.
- The authority had refused additional marks to the petitioner as he had not submitted the NCC ‘B’ certificate photocopy at the time of submitting the original application.
- The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s order and instructed the appointing authority to award the petitioner five additional marks for the NCC ‘B’ certificate.
- The Single Judge refused to issue any positive direction regarding the consideration of the petitioner’s candidature due to lack of pleading about annexing NCC ‘B’ certificate
- The advertisement required self-attested copies of necessary documents with the application form
- Successful candidates needed to produce original certificates before the Selection Council at the time of appointment
- Additional marks were to be awarded for NCC certificates (5 for ‘B’ and 10 for ‘C’). The petitioner didn’t submit his NCC certificate and hence missed the additional five marks for NCC ‘B’ certificate
- The writ petition was disposed of for the authority to consider granting the additional marks if the petitioner submitted the NCC ‘B’ certificate after the physical test but before the results were announced
- The original writ petitioner later found out through RTI that he was awarded 17 marks but still denied the benefit of five marks for NCC ‘B’ certificate
- He filed a writ petition stating that he was eligible for appointment with 17 marks as per the advertisement, but candidates with lesser marks were appointed
Also Read: Upholding Professional Standards in Legal Disciplinary Proceedings
Arguments
- The original writ petitioner claimed to have submitted all relevant certificates, including the NCC ‘B’ certificate, with his application.
- The relevant record was later found to have been destroyed in a flood.
- The original writ petitioner was allotted 17 marks in the select list which included five additional marks for the NCC ‘B’ certificate.
- The Division Bench of the High Court quashed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed to appoint the original writ petitioner as a Constable with the additional marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate.
- The appellants’ counsel argued that only documents submitted with the application should be considered, and original documents were required only at the time of appointment.
- The respondents’ counsel contended that the original writ petitioner did not submit a photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate with the application, and it was produced after the physical test in 2007.
- Despite being awarded 17 marks, the original writ petitioner was not given the additional marks for NCC ‘B’ certificate as per the advertisement requirement.
- The appointing authority did not allot the additional marks as they were not submitted with the application as required.
- The Division Bench of the High Court denied back wages and directed to act as per the select list of 08.09.2007 for the appointment of the original writ petitioner as a Constable.
Also Read: Analysis of Benefits Denial to Daily Rated Employees
Analysis
- The learned Single Judge observed that the original writ petitioner did not submit the photocopy of the NCC ‘B’ certificate along with the original application as required by the advertisement.
- The petitioner submitted the NCC ‘B’ certificate after the physical test on 15.01.2007, which was after the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement.
- In the earlier writ petition, there was no mention or pleading that the petitioner had annexed his NCC ‘B’ certificate along with the original application.
- The appointing authority rightfully refused to allot the additional five marks of the NCC ‘B’ certificate as it was not submitted along with the original application.
- The Court cannot issue any positive direction regarding the consideration of the candidate’s candidature as per the settled proposition of law and the advertisement requirements.
- The Division Bench of the High Court was mistaken in directing the appointment of the original writ petitioner based on the select list dated 08.09.2007 and allotting five additional marks of NCC ‘B’ certificate.
Also Read: Judicial Analysis of Delay Condonation in Second Appeal
Decision
- The present appeal has been successful.
- The judgment and order by the Division Bench of the High Court has been quashed and set aside.
- The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is restored.
- No order as to costs has been specified in this case.
Case Title: THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MADHU KANT RANJAN (2021 INSC 903)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007677-007677 / 2021
