Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court:  Arun Bhansali, J. disposed of a petition challenging the order of rejection of her candidature for Elementary School.

In the instant case, the petitioner, a widow, had applied for a position at an Elementary School. However, her candidature was rejected by the respondent which was decided in pursuant to the judgment in Gena Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1089.

The counsel representing the petitioner, Kailash Jangid, submitted that the petitioner, being a widow, should be ideally granted certain benefits and be appointed accordingly.

The General Counsel representing the respondents, Vishal Jangid submitted that no interference can be made out in such writ petition. He also relied on the case of Manoj Bhatia v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9357 of 2019, decided on 3.7.2019 wherein the present High Court had concluded that only on account of widowhood of a candidate cannot continue with the Elementary Education and that she is entitled to priority in the counselling.

The present Court placed reliance on the judgment of Manoj Bhatia and reiterated the proposition laid down in the case, however, it also stated that the petitioner may approach the respondents for the vacancy in the Secondary School nearby and the respondents shall review any viability regarding the same. The Court also provided that nevertheless, such a statement does not create any right in favour of the petitioner.[Premi Choudhary v. State Of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 2068, decided on 05-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Hyderabad High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar and M. Ganga Rao, JJ., dismissed a writ petition against denying candidature on the ground of developing medical conditions in the future.

The appointment of the respondent for Work Assistant at Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) was rejected by the petitioner on the grounds that he was medically unfit in view of his morbid obesity, uncontrolled hypertension and sleep disorder as opined by the Medical Committee.

The matter went up to the Central Administrative Tribunal where the order of cancellation was rejected by stating that that a candidate could not be declared unfit for a particular post merely on the ground that he suffered from a disease or disorder without a clear finding that he could not perform the duties and responsibilities attached to that particular post and also the mere apprehension that he may develop complications in future cannot be accepted.

The order was challenged, following which the Court stated that the nature of the work was not so onerous or strenuous that only a person in the pink of health could do it plus no specific standard of physical fitness other than visual acuity was required for appointment of a non-technical staff. Consequently, the fundamental level of the respondent was not impaired by his hypertension or being overweight.

The Court concluded by saying that the authorities seem to have gone on a witch-hunt to come up with new diseases/disorders so as to show the respondent the door and hence being utterly devoid of merit the writ petition was dismissed and the employment of the respondent was allowed as per the orders of the tribunal. [Union of India v. Nenavath Suresh,2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 294, order dated 31-08-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Rekha Palli and Hima Kohli, JJ., allowed an appeal and set aside the order passed by Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi concerning the cancelling of candidature for Civil Services Examination 2017 by UPSC.

The present petition was filed under Article226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner had qualified his preliminary and mains stage for Civil Services Examination, 2016. It was noticed that he had mentioned different date of births for both the stages and on reaching the interview stage he filed an affidavit by mentioning the correct date of birth in compliance to his matriculation certificate. Though he did not clear the interview and had further applied for CSE, 2017 in which he again repeated the same mistake, for which a show cause notice was issued to him and his response, was recorded for the same. But due to an unsatisfactory response, his candidature was cancelled for CSE, 2017.

Further, aggrieved by the circumstances and on approaching the tribunal he was allowed to appear for the interview but his final results thereafter were withheld due to the pendency of proceedings at tribunal. Tribunal dismissed petitioner’s OA by upholding the respondent’s decision to cancel his candidature for CSE 2017 on the ground that the mistake was not inadvertent, but a deliberate one. Therefore, the petitioner approached High Court for the dismissal of the same.

The High Court on analysing the circumstances and facts of the matter stated that the mistake on the part of the petitioner in mentioning the date of birth incorrectly has no bearing either on his eligibility for CSE, 2017 or the benefits liable to be derived by him if he ultimately clears the examination. “Error on the part of the petitioner could not be treated as a misrepresentation or suppression of facts.” Thus it was also stated by the Court that in circumstances where petitioner is an SC candidate and a qualified engineer from IIT, cancellation of his candidature at the final stage, would be punitive action, completely disproportionate to a bonafide omission on his part. The order of tribunal and UPSC was quashed and set aside. [Anuj Pratap Singh v. Union of India,2018 SCC OnLine Del 10982, decided on 04-09-2018]