Scarcity Of Jobs In Country, Denying Appointment To Candidate Over Procedural Lapse Is Unjust: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Highlighting the prevailing scarcity of employment opportunities in the country, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that denying a deserving candidate an appointment solely on the basis of a procedural lapse is unjust and unfair.The Court directed the issuance of an appointment letter to a candidate who was unable to join within 30 days of his selection for the post of constable, as he was in judicial custody in connection with an FIR lodged due to a family rivalry. The FIR was later quashed by the High Court following a compromise between the parties.Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "period of 30 days prescribed in the instructions cannot be mechanically applied. The difficulty of the candidate must be considered holistically and pragmatically. The instructions cannot be treated as sacrosanct to deny substantive benefit of appointment. It is well known fact that there is scarcity of job in the country. The petitioner has cleared rigorous selection process, thus, it would not be just and fair to deny him job opportunity on account of procedural lapse/delay."The Court noted that the petitioner cleared physical measurement and screening test and he was selected for the post. He came to be implicated in FIR on September 26, 2024. The selection process concluded on October 17, 2024 i.e. date of declaration of result. He was asked to join vide letter dated November 20, 2024. At that point of time, he was in judicial custody.It further noted that he was implicated in a cross case and there was fight between villagers belonging to two different political parties. First FIR was registered at the behest of family members of the petitioner and cross case was registered after two days against the petitioner and his family members. As it was case of political rivalry and misunderstanding, matter came to be amicably settled. The petitioner was released on bail vide order dated April 01, 2025 and the High Court set aside FIR vide order dated May 19, 2025.Justice Bansal highlighted that the petitioner was denied appointment on the sole ground that he did not join within 30 days from the date of appointment letter relying on a Government Instruction issued in 2019."The respondent has refused to allow petitioner to join service on the basis of aforesaid instructions. The instructions are not statutory in nature. Rule 12.18 of PPR (Punjab Police Rules) governs the situation arising out of implication of a candidate in a criminal case. The petitioner's case is not covered by negative covenant of said Rule. It is settled proposition of law that instructions are binding on authorities, however, Courts are not bound by instructions," it added.The Court pointed that Rule 12.18(3) of PPR specifically deals with the situation in hand and does not prescribe 30 days period to join. In the absence of statutory provision, the instructions may be treated as directory instead of mandatory besides the fact that departmental instructions are not binding upon Courts.In the light of the above, the Court setae the order rejecting appointment of the petitioner.Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitionerMr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. A.G, HaryanaTitle: HARSH RAWAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 412Click here to read order

Scarcity Of Jobs In Country, Denying Appointment To Candidate Over Procedural Lapse Is Unjust: Punjab & Haryana High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Scarcity Of Jobs In Country, Denying Appointment To Candidate Over Procedural Lapse Is Unjust: Punjab & Haryana High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers