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

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 59

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

Can a government employee be denied a job opportunity because their employer delayed issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a candidate was denied appointment despite being more meritorious. The court examined whether the delay in issuing the NOC should be held against the candidate when the delay was not attributable to them. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

Narender Singh, the appellant, was working as a JBT Teacher in Haryana since 2000. In 2016, the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 1647 posts for Assistant Professors, including one in History. Narender Singh applied for the post of Assistant Professor (History) on 16.02.2016. The last date for online submission was 15.03.2016, later extended to 10.05.2016. The advertisement required candidates working in government organizations to submit a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from their employer at the time of the interview.

To comply with this requirement, Narender Singh applied for an NOC on 22.03.2016 through his school principal to the District Elementary Education Officer, Jhajjar, the competent authority. His application was received by the officer on 04.04.2016. Narender Singh appeared for the written examination on 05.03.2017 and cleared it on 06.11.2017. Despite reminders, the NOC was not issued. As the interviews were scheduled for 13.12.2017, Narender Singh filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking directions for the issuance of the NOC.

The High Court allowed him to attend the interview provisionally, 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 15.12.2017, and appointments were made on 12.07.2018. On 06.06.2018, the NOC was finally issued, and Narender Singh submitted it to the Public Service Commission on 08.06.2018. He then filed another writ petition seeking appointment since he had secured more marks than the last selected candidate. Both writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a Civil Writ Petition No.27864 of 2017 before the High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to issue the NOC. The High Court, on 07.12.2017, issued an interim order allowing the appellant to attend the interview provisionally. His result was kept in a sealed cover. Despite the interim order, the Public Service Commission did not appoint him due to the absence of the NOC. The High Court noted on 30.04.2018 that the appellant had scored higher marks than the last selected candidate, but the matter was adjourned. The NOC was issued on 06.06.2018, and the appellant submitted it on 08.06.2018. However, the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions (CWP No.27864 of 2017 and CWP No.17255 of 2018) on 06.11.2019, stating that the appellant had delayed pursuing the NOC. The High Court did impose a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the employer for the delay in issuing the NOC. The appellant then filed a Letter Patent Appeal, which was also dismissed by the High Court on 28.09.2021.

Legal Framework

The legal framework in this case revolves around the requirement of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for government employees applying for other government positions. The advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission on 16.02.2016 mandated that candidates serving in Government/Semi-Government organizations under any State Government or Government of India must submit an NOC from their appointing authority at the time of the interview. This requirement is intended to ensure that the employer is aware of the employee’s application for another position and has no objection to their release if selected.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that there was no delay or fault on his part. He applied for the NOC well before the deadline and even sent a reminder.
• The delay in issuing the NOC was solely attributable to his employer, the District Elementary Education Officer, and he should not be penalized for their inaction.
• The appellant highlighted that he had scored more marks than the last selected candidate (respondent No. 4) and was therefore more meritorious.
• The appellant contended that the High Court had erred in dismissing his petition despite acknowledging the employer’s delay and imposing costs on them.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Public Service Commission stated that it had no role in the issuance of the NOC and was merely following the rules of the selection process.
• The State of Haryana acknowledged the delay in issuing the NOC and stated that an inquiry had been initiated against the responsible officer.
• Respondent No. 4 argued that his appointment should be protected as he had been serving since 2018 and that there were other vacant posts available.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that he should not be made to suffer for the fault of the employer, which was a government authority itself. The appellant also highlighted the fact that he was more meritorious than the last selected candidate.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the appellant should be denied appointment due to the employer’s delay in issuing the NOC, despite the appellant applying on time and being more meritorious than the selected candidate.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Authorities Considered

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: The Court used this power to ensure complete justice by directing the appointment of the appellant and protecting the job of respondent No. 4.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of fairness and justice. The court emphasized that the appellant should not suffer due to the employer’s delay, especially when the appellant had applied for the NOC on time and was more meritorious than the last selected candidate. The court also considered the fact that the respondent No.4 had been serving since 2018 and that there were other vacant positions available. The court decided to exercise its power under Article 142 to balance the interests of all parties involved.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, such as the appellant’s timely application, the employer’s delay, and the comparative merit of the candidates. The legal aspect, mainly the power under Article 142, was used to implement the decision based on the facts.

Logical Reasoning

Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that no one should be penalized for the fault of another, especially when the fault lies with a government authority. The court noted that the appellant had applied for the NOC in a timely manner and had even sent reminders. The delay in issuing the NOC was solely attributable to the employer, the District Elementary Education Officer. The court also emphasized that the appellant was more meritorious than the last selected candidate and, therefore, had a stronger claim to the position. The court observed that the High Court had erred in dismissing the writ petitions despite acknowledging the employer’s delay and imposing costs on them.

The court also considered the circumstances of respondent No. 4, who had been serving since 2018 and had not obtained the job through any fraudulent means. The court used its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to balance the interests of all parties involved. The court directed the State Government to appoint the appellant to the post of Assistant Professor (History) while also ensuring that respondent No. 4 was not disturbed and was accommodated on another vacant post.

The court quoted from the judgment: “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 further stated, “He cannot be punished for no fault of him.” and “to disturb him at this stage, would not be justifiable.”

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the outcome and the reasoning.

Key Takeaways

• Government employees should not be penalized for delays caused by their employers, especially in matters of NOC issuance.
• Merit should be a primary consideration in appointments, and more meritorious candidates should not be denied opportunities due to administrative delays.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142 to ensure complete justice and balance the interests of all parties involved.
• Employers have a responsibility to process NOC applications in a timely manner.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave 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) within two weeks.
• The appellant was not entitled to back wages but was entitled to continuity in service for the purpose of seniority and pay fixation.
• Respondent No. 4 was not to be disturbed and was to be accommodated on another vacant post of Assistant Professor (History).

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a candidate should not be denied appointment due to the employer’s delay in issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC), especially when the candidate has applied on time and is more meritorious than the selected candidate. This judgment clarifies that administrative delays should not prejudice the rights of deserving candidates. The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that merit should be a primary consideration in appointments and that no one should be penalized for the fault of another, particularly when the fault lies with a government authority.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Narender Singh vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. is a significant ruling that emphasizes the importance of fairness and merit in government appointments. The court held that a candidate should not be denied a job opportunity due to the employer’s delay in issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC), provided the candidate applied on time and is more meritorious than the selected candidate. The court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, directing the appointment of the appellant and protecting the job of the respondent No. 4 by accommodating him on another vacant post. This judgment serves as a reminder that administrative delays should not prejudice the rights of deserving candidates and that merit should be a primary consideration in government appointments.