LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate should be denied appointment due to a delay in receiving a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from their employer, when the delay is not attributable to the candidate.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Narender Singh vs. The State of Haryana & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 18 January 2022
Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022
Citation: [Not Available in the source]
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a candidate be denied a job opportunity because their employer delayed issuing a necessary document? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this issue in a case where a teacher was denied a position as an Assistant Professor due to a delayed No Objection Certificate (NOC) from his employer. The court had to decide if the delay, which was not the fault of the candidate, should prevent him from being appointed. This judgment explores the balance between procedural requirements and fairness in government appointments.
The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The appellant, Narender Singh, was working as a JBT Teacher in Haryana since 2000. In 2016, the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 1647 posts for Assistant Professors. Narender Singh applied for the post of Assistant Professor (History). The advertisement required candidates working in government or semi-government organizations to submit a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from their employer at the time of the interview.
Narender Singh applied for the NOC on 22 March 2016, through his school principal to the District Elementary Education Officer, Jhajjar, the competent authority to issue the NOC. The application was received by the officer on 4 April 2016. He appeared for the written exam on 5 March 2017, and cleared it, the result of which was declared on 6 November 2017. He was required to submit the NOC at the time of the interview. Narender Singh sent a reminder on 9 November 2017, but received no response.
Due to the delay in receiving the NOC, Narender Singh filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking directions to the authorities to issue the NOC. The High Court, on 7 December 2017, allowed him to provisionally participate in the interview. He was interviewed, but his result was kept in a sealed cover. The Public Service Commission did not appoint him due to the absence of the NOC. The final selection results were declared on 15 December 2017, and appointments were made on 12 July 2018.
On 30 April 2018, the High Court, upon opening the sealed cover, found that Narender Singh had scored higher than the last selected candidate. The NOC was finally issued on 6 June 2018, and submitted to the Public Service Commission on 8 June 2018. Despite this, he was not appointed. Narender Singh filed another writ petition on 16 July 2018, seeking appointment, but both his petitions were dismissed by the High Court on 6 November 2019. The High Court noted that he should have pursued the NOC earlier. The High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the employer for the delay in issuing the NOC, but did not direct his appointment. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court on 28 September 2021.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 16 February 2016 | Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 1647 posts of Assistant Professor. |
| 22 March 2016 | Narender Singh applied for NOC. |
| 4 April 2016 | NOC application received by District Elementary Education Officer, Jhajjar. |
| 5 March 2017 | Narender Singh appeared for the written examination. |
| 6 November 2017 | Result of the written examination declared; Narender Singh cleared the exam. |
| 9 November 2017 | Narender Singh sent a reminder for NOC. |
| 5 December 2017 | Narender Singh filed a writ petition in the High Court for issuance of NOC. |
| 7 December 2017 | High Court allowed Narender Singh to provisionally attend the interview. |
| 12-14 December 2017 | Interviews conducted. |
| 15 December 2017 | Final selection results declared. |
| 30 April 2018 | High Court found Narender Singh scored higher than the last selected candidate. |
| 6 June 2018 | NOC issued to Narender Singh. |
| 8 June 2018 | NOC submitted to Haryana Public Service Commission. |
| 12 July 2018 | Appointments made by the Public Service Commission. |
| 16 July 2018 | Narender Singh filed a fresh writ petition seeking appointment. |
| 6 November 2019 | High Court dismissed both writ petitions. |
| 28 September 2021 | Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeal. |
| 18 January 2022 | Supreme Court allows the appeal and directs the appointment of Narender Singh. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed a Civil Writ Petition (No. 27864 of 2017) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, seeking a direction to the authorities to issue the NOC. The High Court allowed him to provisionally participate in the interview. After the denial of appointment, the appellant filed another writ petition (No. 17255 of 2018) seeking appointment.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions, noting that the appellant should have pursued the NOC earlier. However, the court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the employer for the delay. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the requirement of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for government employees applying for other government jobs. The advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission on 16 February 2016, mandated that candidates working in government or semi-government organizations must submit an NOC from their employer at the time of the interview.
There is no specific section of any statute mentioned in the judgment.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that he applied for the NOC well within time, before the last date for submitting the online application form.
- He contended that despite sending a reminder, the NOC was not issued, forcing him to approach the High Court.
- The appellant submitted that the NOC was eventually issued and submitted to the Public Service Commission before the final appointments were made.
- He argued that the delay was solely on the part of his employer, and he should not suffer for their inaction.
- The appellant pointed out that he scored higher than the last selected candidate, demonstrating his merit.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The Public Service Commission stated that it had no role in the controversy as it was not the competent authority to issue NOC.
- The State of Haryana acknowledged the delay in issuing the NOC and stated that an inquiry had been initiated.
- Respondent No. 4 (the appointed candidate) requested that his service be protected, as he had been serving since 2018 and that there were other vacant posts available.
The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in highlighting that the delay in issuing the NOC was not his fault and that he should not be penalized for the employer’s inaction, especially when he was more meritorious than the last selected candidate.
Submissions Table
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | No fault in delay; Appointment should be given |
✓ Applied for NOC in time ✓ Sent reminder for NOC ✓ NOC issued before appointments ✓ Delay was due to employer ✓ More meritorious than last selected candidate |
| Public Service Commission | No role in NOC issuance | ✓ Not the competent authority for NOC |
| State of Haryana | Acknowledged delay; Inquiry initiated |
✓ Delay in issuing NOC ✓ Inquiry initiated against the concerned officer |
| Respondent No. 4 | Service should be protected |
✓ Serving since 2018 ✓ Appointed as per merit ✓ Other vacant posts available |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue can be summarized as:
- Whether the appellant should be denied appointment due to a delay in receiving the NOC, when the delay was not attributable to him.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellant should be denied appointment due to a delay in receiving the NOC, when the delay was not attributable to him. | The appellant should not be denied appointment. | The delay was due to the employer, not the appellant. The appellant was more meritorious than the last selected candidate and submitted the NOC before the final appointments were made. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases, books, or legal provisions in its judgment.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Delay not attributable to him; Appointment should be given. | Accepted. The Court held that the appellant should not be penalized for the employer’s delay and directed his appointment. |
| Public Service Commission | No role in NOC issuance. | Acknowledged. The Court noted that the Public Service Commission was not responsible for the NOC delay. |
| State of Haryana | Acknowledged delay; Inquiry initiated. | Noted. The Court acknowledged the State’s admission of delay and initiation of inquiry. |
| Respondent No. 4 | Service should be protected. | Accepted. The Court protected the service of Respondent No. 4 and directed the State to accommodate him on another vacant post. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
There were no authorities cited in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was not at fault for the delay in receiving the NOC. The Court emphasized that the appellant had applied for the NOC in a timely manner and had even pursued the matter with the High Court. The court also considered the fact that the appellant was more meritorious than the last selected candidate. The court was also conscious of the fact that the respondent No.4 was working since 2018 and should not be disturbed. The Court’s decision reflects a sentiment of fairness and equity, ensuring that a candidate is not penalized for the administrative lapses of their employer.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s lack of fault in NOC delay | 40% |
| Appellant’s merit compared to last selected candidate | 30% |
| Respondent No.4’s service since 2018 | 30% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the appellant’s timely application for NOC and the employer’s delay, with legal considerations playing a secondary role.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court. The Court held that the appellant should not be penalized for the delay caused by his employer in issuing the NOC. The Court emphasized that the appellant had applied for the NOC well in time and had even approached the High Court for its issuance. The Court also noted that the appellant was more meritorious than the last selected candidate.
The Court directed the State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor (History). The Court also directed that the respondent No.4 be not disturbed and be accommodated on another vacant post of Assistant Professor (History).
The Court clarified that the appellant would not be entitled to back wages, applying the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’, but would be entitled to continuity in service for seniority and pay fixation purposes.
The Court observed, “From the chronological dates and events reproduced herein above by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was any delay and/or lapse or fault on the part of the appellant.”
The Court further stated, “Once it is found that there was no lapse and/or delay on the part of the appellant and /or there was no fault of the appellant in not producing the NOC at the relevant time and when it was produced immediately on receipt of the same and that too before the appointments were made and when it is found that the last candidate, who is appointed, i.e., respondent No.4 herein is having less marks than the appellant and thus the appellant is a more meritorious candidate than the last candidate appointed, i.e., respondent No.4, to deny him the appointment is not justifiable at all.”
The Court also noted, “Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and when it is found that there was no fault on the part of the respondent No.4 when he was appointed in the year 2018 and thereafter, he has been continued in service since last three years, to disturb him at this stage, would not be justifiable.”
Key Takeaways
- A candidate should not be penalized for delays caused by their employer in issuing necessary documents like NOCs, provided the candidate has applied for the document in a timely manner.
- Merit should be a primary consideration in government appointments, and more meritorious candidates should not be denied opportunities due to administrative lapses.
- Courts can exercise their powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure substantial justice, balancing the interests of all parties involved.
- The principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ may be applied in cases where a candidate is appointed after a delay, but they should be given continuity in service for seniority and pay fixation purposes.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- The State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor (History) within two weeks.
- The appellant would not be entitled to back wages but would be entitled to continuity in service for seniority and pay fixation.
- Respondent No. 4 should not be disturbed and should be accommodated on another vacant post of Assistant Professor (History).
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a candidate should not be denied appointment due to a delay in receiving a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from their employer, when the delay is not attributable to the candidate. This judgment reinforces the principle that candidates should not suffer due to administrative lapses, especially when they are more meritorious and have followed the necessary procedures. This decision also highlights the court’s willingness to use its powers under Article 142 to ensure equitable outcomes.
Conclusion
In the case of Narender Singh vs. The State of Haryana, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing his appointment as an Assistant Professor (History). The Court emphasized that the appellant should not be penalized for the delay in receiving the NOC, which was caused by his employer. The Court also protected the service of the existing appointee, directing the State to accommodate him on another vacant post. This judgment underscores the importance of fairness and merit in government appointments and ensures that candidates are not disadvantaged by administrative delays beyond their control.