Top
Top Stories

[Public Employment] Principle Of Estoppel Does Not Apply When There Were Glaring Illegalities In Candidate Selection Procedure: SC [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
9 April 2020 7:12 AM GMT
[Public Employment] Principle Of Estoppel Does Not Apply When There Were Glaring Illegalities In Candidate Selection Procedure: SC [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has reiterated that when glaring illegalities have been committed in the procedure to get the candidates for examination, the principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application.

The bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha observed thus while uphold the High Court judgment which had set aside the selection process to the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) conducted by Haryana Staff Selection Commission.

The Court noted that the preposition that a candidate, who participates in a selection without a demur taking a calculated chance to get selected cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection and the constitution of the selection committee is well settled.

Referring to earlier judgments in Raj Kumar and Others Vs. Shakti Raj and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 527 and Bishnu Biswas and others Union of India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 774, the Court, in facts of the case, said:

When candidate is not aware of the criteria of selection under which he was subjected in the process and the said criteria for the first time is published along with final result dated 10.04.2010, he cannot be estopped from challenging the criteria of selection and the entire process of selection. Further when the written examination as notified earlier was scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for interview giving a go bye to a fair and reasonable process for shortlisting the candidates for interview, that too only by Chairman of the Commission whereas decision regarding criteria of selection has to be taken by Commission, the candidates have every right to challenge the entire selection process so conducted.

The Division Bench of the High Court is right in its conclusion that the selection criteria, which saw the light of the day along with declaration of the selection result could be assailed by the unsuccessful candidates only after it was published. Similarly, selection process which was notified was never followed and the selection criteria which was followed was never notified till the declaration of final result, hence, the writ petitioners cannot be estopped from challenging the selection. We, thus, hold that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners could not have been thrown on the ground of estoppel and the writ petitioners could very well challenge the criteria of selection applied by the Commission, which was declared by the Commission only at the time of declaration of the final result.

The court also observed that the selection and appointment on post in the State have to conform to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 16. It said:

The selection and appointment on post borne on the State establishment provides an opportunity to citizens of public employment. The personnel who man the civil posts in State apart from carrying out objectives and policies of State also serve as source of sustenance for their families. The selection and appointment on post in the State have to conform to the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Articles 14 and 16. The objective of a State in selecting persons into public service has always been to select the best and most suitable person.  
Case no: CIVIL APPEAL NO.2103 OF 2020
  Case name: RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM vs. SANJEEV KUMAR 
  Coram: Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha


Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment



Next Story