SC: Subsidy Taxability Depends on its Purpose under The Income Tax Law  ||  MP HC:Revenue Authority’s Decision Can’t Operate as Res Judicata in Absence of Express Statutory Bar  ||  SC: Breakup Followed by Suicide does not Automatically Amount to Abetment to Suicide  ||  SC: Election Petition under Representation of the People Act Must be Filed Personally by Petitioner  ||  Patna HC: Template Arrest Memo cannot Satisfy Mandate under Article 22 of Constitution  ||  MP HC: Delayed Cruelty FIR not Counterblast When Wife “Remains Silent” to Save her Married Life  ||  MP HC:Revenue Authority’s Decision Can’t Operate as Res Judicata in Absence of Express Statutory Bar  ||  Patna HC: Signature Mismatch alone cannot Prove OMR Tampering  ||  J&K&L HC: Bail can be Set Aside if Contrary to Statutory Mandate  ||  Kerala HC: Headmistress’s Churidar cannot Bar Entry, Clothing Choice is A Fundamental Right    

Laxmi Saroj and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (15 Dec 2022)

When there is no lapse/delay on the part of the Applicant, he cannot be punished for the same

MANU/SC/1621/2022

Service

The original writ Petitioners have preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which, the High Court refused to issue a writ directing the Respondent(s) to appoint them on the post of Health Worker (Female).

The date of advertisement inviting applications was 15th December, 2021. The last date of submitting the application was 5th January, 2022. Because of the late issuance of the registration by the U.P. Council, the Appellants could not produce the U.P. Council registration either on the last date of the application and/or at the time of verification of documents and therefore, they were held ineligible. There was no fault on the part of the appellants in not producing the U.P. Council registration either at the time of submitting the applications forms or even at the time of verification of the documents. Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer.

The issue involved is directly covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors. In the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court that once it was found that there was no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant and/or there was no fault of the appellant/applicant in not producing the NOC at the relevant time, he cannot be punished for the same. If it is found that, there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him. On applying the law laid down by present Court in the case of Narender Singh vs. State of Haryana and Ors., the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : APPOINTMENT   ELIGIBILITY   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved