Supreme Court Orders Appointment Despite NOC Delay: Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 37

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a government employee be denied a job opportunity because their employer delayed issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC), even when the employee applied for it on time and was more qualified than the selected candidate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical issue in a case where a candidate was denied appointment despite being more meritorious due to an employer-caused delay in issuing the NOC. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of fairness and accountability in government processes. This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, clarifies that a candidate should not suffer due to the employer’s lapse, especially when the candidate has diligently followed the procedure.

Case Background

The appellant, Narender Singh, was working as a JBT Teacher in Haryana since 2000. In 2016, the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) advertised 1647 posts for Assistant Professors, including one in History, which Narender Singh applied for. The advertisement required candidates employed in 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 March 22, 2016, through his school principal to the District Elementary Education Officer, Jhajjar. His application was received by the officer on April 4, 2016. He appeared for the written exam on March 5, 2017, and cleared it, with the result declared on November 6, 2017. Despite sending a reminder on November 9, 2017, the NOC was not issued.

Facing the prospect of being unable to attend the interview scheduled for December 13, 2017, due to the lack of NOC, Narender Singh filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on December 5, 2017. The High Court, on December 7, 2017, allowed him to attend the interview provisionally. He was interviewed, but his result was kept in a sealed cover. The final selection results were declared on December 15, 2017, and appointments were made on July 12, 2018, but Narender Singh was not appointed.

On April 30, 2018, the High Court opened the sealed cover and found that Narender Singh had scored 64.89 marks, while the last selected candidate in his category had scored 62.64. Despite this, the High Court adjourned the matter. The NOC was eventually issued on June 6, 2018, and submitted to HPSC on June 8, 2018. Narender Singh filed another writ petition on July 16, 2018, seeking appointment, but both writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court on November 6, 2019. The High Court noted that Narender Singh should have pursued the NOC earlier, but imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on his employer for the delay. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, leading Narender Singh to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Narender Singh initially filed a writ petition (CWP No.27864 of 2017) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking a direction to his employer to issue the NOC. The High Court allowed him to attend the interview provisionally. After the final selection, he filed another writ petition (CWP No.17255 of 2018) for appointment, as he had secured more marks than the last selected candidate and had submitted the NOC.

The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, stating that Narender Singh should have pursued the NOC earlier. However, it imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on his employer for the delay. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision in a Letter Patent Appeal.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Narender Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the delay in issuing the NOC was not his fault and that he was more meritorious than the last selected candidate.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the requirement of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for government employees applying for other government jobs. The advertisement by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) mandated that candidates working in government or semi-government organizations must submit an NOC from their employer at the time of the interview. This requirement is intended to ensure that the employer is aware of the employee’s job application and has no objection to their release if selected.

The legal framework in this case is not based on a specific statute or provision, but rather on the administrative requirement set by the HPSC in its advertisement. The High Court’s and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of this requirement and its application to the facts of the case forms the core of the legal analysis.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Narender Singh):

• The appellant argued that he applied for the NOC well within time, on March 22, 2016, much before the last date for submitting the online application form.
• He contended that despite sending a reminder, the NOC was not issued by his employer.
• He submitted that the delay in issuing the NOC was not his fault but the fault of his employer, the District Elementary Education Officer.
• He emphasized that he had secured more marks than the last selected candidate and was therefore more meritorious.
• He argued that the High Court erred in not directing the respondents to appoint him, especially when the delay was on the part of the employer.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Haryana & Haryana Public Service Commission):

• The Public Service Commission stated that it had no role in the issuance of the NOC and was only following the prescribed procedure.
• The State of Haryana acknowledged the delay on the part of the District Elementary Education Officer and stated that an inquiry had been initiated.
• The State did not dispute that the appellant had scored more marks than the last selected candidate.

Respondent’s Arguments (Respondent No. 4):

• The respondent No. 4, who was already appointed, requested that his service be protected, as he had been serving since 2018.
• He argued that there were many vacant posts and he could be accommodated on another post if the appellant was also appointed.

The innovativeness of the appellant’s argument lies in the fact that he was able to convince the court that he should not be penalized for the delay caused by his employer.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the appellant should be denied appointment due to the delay in the issuance of the NOC by his employer, when the appellant had applied for the NOC well in time and was otherwise more meritorious than the last selected candidate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The decision was primarily based on the facts of the case and the principle of fairness. The court considered the administrative requirement of an NOC as per the advertisement and the circumstances surrounding its non-issuance.

The Court also considered the fact that the appellant was more meritorious than the last selected candidate and that the delay in issuing the NOC was not his fault. The court also considered the fact that the NOC was issued before the actual date of appointment.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The administrative requirement of the NOC was considered, but the Court held that the requirement should not be used to deny appointment when the delay was not the candidate’s fault.
• The fact that the appellant was more meritorious was a key factor in the Court’s decision.
• The fact that the delay in issuing the NOC was not the fault of the appellant was a key factor in the Court’s decision.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of fairness and the fact that the appellant was not at fault for the delay in the issuance of the NOC. The Court emphasized that a candidate should not be penalized for the lapses of their employer, particularly when the candidate has diligently followed the prescribed procedure and is more meritorious than the last selected candidate.

The Court also considered the fact that the NOC was issued before the actual date of appointment, which further strengthened the appellant’s case. The Court’s decision also took into account the fact that the respondent No. 4 had been serving since 2018 and that disturbing his appointment would not be justifiable. The Court, therefore, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice by directing the State to accommodate the respondent No. 4 on another vacant post.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as denying the appointment due to the delay in the NOC, but rejected them because it would be unfair to punish the appellant for the employer’s lapse. The Court also considered the implications of disturbing the appointment of the respondent No. 4, and therefore, decided to exercise its powers under Article 142 to do substantial justice.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant should be appointed as he was more meritorious and the delay in issuing the NOC was not his fault. The Court also directed that the respondent No. 4 should not be disturbed and should be accommodated on another vacant post.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principles of fairness, equity, and justice. The Court highlighted that a candidate should not be penalized for the lapses of their employer, particularly when the candidate has diligently followed the prescribed procedure and is more meritorious than the last selected candidate.

The Court stated, “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 noted, “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 observed, “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

• Government employees should not be penalized for delays caused by their employers, especially when they have applied for necessary clearances in a timely manner.
• Employers must ensure that they process NOC applications promptly and efficiently.
• Merit should be a primary consideration in appointments, and candidates should not be denied opportunities due to procedural delays not of their making.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice.
• The judgment sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing fairness and accountability in government processes.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission were directed to issue an appointment order to the appellant on the post of Assistant Professor (History).
• The State Government was directed to accommodate the respondent No. 4 on any other vacant post of Assistant Professor (History).
• The appellant was not entitled to back wages but was entitled to continuity in service for the purpose of seniority, pay fixation, etc.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a candidate should not be denied appointment due to a delay in the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by their employer, when the candidate applied for the NOC well in time and was otherwise meritorious. This judgment reinforces the principle that candidates should not suffer due to the fault of their employers.

This judgment does not overrule any existing legal positions but clarifies the application of administrative requirements in the context of government employment. It emphasizes the importance of fairness and accountability in government processes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Narender Singh, setting aside the judgments of the High Court. The Court directed the State Government and the Haryana Public Service Commission to appoint the appellant as Assistant Professor (History). The Court also directed that the respondent No. 4 should not be disturbed and should be accommodated on another vacant post. The judgment underscores the principle that candidates should not be penalized for the lapses of their employers, especially when they are more meritorious and have followed the prescribed procedures diligently.