The Supreme Court has directed the Union Department of Posts to give the job of a postal assistant to a man who had first applied for the post in 1995.
The Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Dipankar Datta recently observed that the Central government was responsible for the matter dragging on for two decades.
The Apex Court noted that the 50-year-old job aspirant had been discriminated against and arbitrarily denied the post, days after he was selected by the authorities only on account of an executive order.
Exercising its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the top court of the country directed the Postal department to appoint the petitioner as a postal assistant within one month, initially on probation.
The Bench noted that it could not overlook the fact that by the passage of time, the third respondent (job aspirant) had crossed the maximum age for entry into public employment. He was currently 50-year-old and the age of superannuation was reported to be 60 years.
The Apex Court said that in such a situation, it proposed to dispose of this appeal by making appropriate directions in exercise of its power to do complete justice between the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Petitioner Ankur Gupta contended that he was selected as postal assistant following a 1995 recruitment drive.
However, he and some other candidates were later deemed ineligible for the post after being asked to join for training based on a clarificatory letter issued by the Chief Post Master General.
In the said letter, it was stated that the candidates who pursued a vocational stream in High School would be ineligible for the post.
The candidates who were denied a chance to continue in service on account of this letter, challenged this development before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
The CAT granted them relief and the High Court also ruled in their favour, prompting the Central government to file an appeal in 2022 before the Supreme Court.
By this time, the candidates other than Gupta had lost interest in the matter, leaving him as the sole candidate who was still actively involved in the litigation.
The Apex Court eventually granted relief to Gupta after noting that he (and other candidates) could not be faulted for expecting to be appointed a postal assistant after having been selected and named in the merit list.
The Bench noted that given the stages of process that the candidate had successfully crossed, he may not have a vested right of appointment but a reasonable expectation of being appointed having regard to his position in the merit list could arise.
It said the employer, if it was a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out from the range of appointment without rhyme or reason.
Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench directed that Gupta either be appointed as a postal assistant or that a supernumerary post be created for him if there was no vacant post.
However, it clarified that the petitioner could not claim salary arrears or seniority. However, he would be entitled to all retiral benefits as calculated from the date of the notification/advertisement for hiring in 1995.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, along with Advocates B.N.N. Shivani, Ashok Panigrahi and Gurmeet Singh Makker represented the Central government.
The private respondents were represented by Advocates Kaushal Yadav, Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Yadav and Ajay Kumar.
(Case title: Union of India vs Uzair Imran and Ors)