Employer Best Suited To Determine Eligibility Of Candidates, Courts Ordinarily Don't Substitute Their View: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

The Gauhati High Court has held that determination of a candidate's eligibility and suitability for a post primarily lies with the employer, and courts ordinarily do not substitute their own view unless the decision-making process is arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to the recruitment criteria.Justice Robin Phukan, presiding over the case, observed, “Thus, an employer is best suited to determine the eligibility and suitability of a candidate according to the requirements of the post and the nature of work and also to assess whether a candidate meets the post requirements. The Courts ordinarily do not substitute their view for the employer's on suitability, provided the recruitment rules and advertisement are to be followed. It is the employer to determine the eligibility and suitability.” Justice Phukan, however, clarified that “this principle does not allow the employer to act arbitrarily or contrary to the advertised criteria, because courts have also held that ambiguity in qualifications should generally be resolved in favour of the candidate.”The ruling was passed in a writ petition filed by one Rezzaqul Hussain, who had challenged the rejection of his claim for provincialisation as Library Assistant in Janapriya College, Barpeta, and also assailed the provincialisation of one of the respondents, viz., Babul Hossain, as Library Assistant.The petitioner's case before the Court was that he had been appointed as Library Assistant in Janapriya College in March 2006 and had continuously discharged duties in that capacity. According to him, although the college had at different times entrusted him with additional duties as Tutor in Philosophy, Librarian and Assistant Librarian, he never resigned from the post of Library Assistant. He further alleged that the college authorities manipulated the service records while preparing the staff particulars for provincialisation and showed him as Assistant Librarian, whereas Hossain was shown as Junior Assistant and later provincialised as Library Assistant. The State authorities and the college, however, contended that the petitioner had subsequently been appointed as Assistant Librarian in 2010 and his name had been forwarded for provincialisation against that post. They further contended that his service could not be provincialised because his BLISC degree was obtained through off-campus distance education mode.The Court noted, “the petitioner has failed to demonstrate from the record that while granting him BLISC degree by the Vinayak Mission University, Tamil Nadu, he had the requisite approval from the UGC or the Distance Education Bureau earlier (IGNOU). And in absence of such approval, the degree so obtained by the petitioner cannot be held to be a valid degree.”The Court also found, “In the case in hand, the disputed question is whether records of the college with respect to appointing the petitioner as Assistant Librarian, were manipulated or not. And to decide such a question, a detailed enquiry will be required. But, in the instant case, necessary facts and proofs have not been placed on record. For which, such an enquiry cannot be delved into.”The Court further took note of documents submitted by the petitioner himself during the provincialisation process. The Court recorded that while submitting individual information by the petitioner for provincialisation of service, he had mentioned the post being held by him, as Assistant Librarian. “His signature is also there. From a careful perusal of the said Annexure, it cannot be said that the said document is a manipulated document. Further, it appears that with the said Annexure he had also annexed his educational qualification certificates such as the BLISC, and the mark sheets. From these documents, it cannot be said that the name of the petitioner was forwarded for being provincialisation as Assistant Librarian,” the Court stated.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition for want of merit and consequently vacated the interim order staying the provincialisation of Hossain.Case Name: Rezzaqul Hussain v. State of Assam & 6 Ors.LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 76Case Number: WP(C)/5544/2023 along with I.A.(Civil)/85/2024 Click here to read the judgment

Employer Best Suited To Determine Eligibility Of Candidates, Courts Ordinarily Don't Substitute Their View: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

Employer Best Suited To Determine Eligibility Of Candidates, Courts Ordinarily Don't Substitute Their View: Gauhati High Court Reiterates

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers