Red-tapism can’t defeat meritorious candidates’ lawful rights: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the lawful right of a meritorious candidate to appointment cannot be left to the whims of the State agency and that bureaucratic red tape cannot serve as a shield to avoid responsibility arising from administrative inaction
“The lawful right of a meritorious candidate claiming appointment cannot be left at the sweet whims of a State agency which feels it has nothing to lose in delaying the right,” Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj of the high court asserted
The ruling came in a petition where a water pump operator applicant belonging to the Economically Backward Persons in the General Category (EBPG) was denied timely appointment despite scoring substantially higher marks than the last selected candidate. The petitioner’s recommendation was withheld on the ground that he had not produced a sports gradation certificate and that his EBPG certificate was allegedly dated after the last date of online application.
Referring to the objections, Justice Bhardwaj asserted the aspect of delay in submission of document was considered while hearing an earlier petition. Among other things, it was held that the petitioner had attached and uploaded an EBPG certificate issued earlier along with his application form. He was in possession of a valid EBPG certificate and there was no dispute regarding his belonging to the category.
Referring to the sports-certificate issue, Justice Bhardwaj ruled: “This court specifically ruled that such deficiency was immaterial. This was because no benefit or reservation was available or claimed by the petitioner on account of his sports achievements and no marks or weightage was claimed under this category.”
Justice Bhardwaj added the high court then directed Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) on January 13, 2020, to recommend the petitioner’s appointment within 15 days and the Public Health Engineering Department to issue the appointment letter within 15 days thereafter.
The decision regarding the petitioner’s appointment upheld by a Division Bench on December 3, 2021. But the commission made its recommendation belatedly on May 25, 2022, after a delay of approximately five months.
Expressing disapproval, Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “The respondents contended that the delay in making the recommendation was attributable to the HSSC. However, undisputedly the commission as well as the respondent-department operate as wings of the state government. Consequently, benefits lawfully accruing to an individual cannot be permitted to be withheld merely because one organ of the State failed to comply with the first part of the directions”.
The court added it would be a travesty of justice to rule that the petitioner was not at fault yet the State could be absolved of consequences or liabilities. “It amounts to be an approval of the State conduct refusing to take responsibilities of its action. Such benevolence at the cost of the citizen only condones negligent attitude and response of the State while the rightful citizen struggles to claim his dues knocking from one jurisdiction to another,” Justice Bhardwaj asserted.
Directing the State to compute all admissible financial benefits within two months and pay them within a further two months, the Bench ruled that failure to comply with the timelines would entitle the petitioner to 6 per cent per annum interest for the period of delay and the government shall be at liberty to recover the same from the erring officials.
Haryana Tribune