SC: Menstrual Health is a Fundamental Right under Article 21; Orders Free Sanitary Pads in Schools  ||  Supreme Court: Industrial Court is the Proper Forum to Decide Issues Relating to Contract Labour  ||  Supreme Court: Only Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate  ||  SC: Demolition of Private Property Must Rest on Clear Statutory Grounds and Due Consideration  ||  SC: After Complaint Was Withdrawn, BCI Disciplinary Committee Could Not Penalise Advocate  ||  MP HC: Decree Holder Cannot Defeat Compromise or Initiate Execution by Refusing Debtor’s Cheque  ||  MP HC: Spouse’s Income Cannot Be Clubbed With Public Servant’s for Disproportionate Assets Case  ||  Ker HC: Bar Association is Not Employer & Cannot Form Internal Complaints Committee under POSH Act  ||  SC: Ex-Contract Workers Must Be Preferred When Employers Replace Contract Labour With Regular Staff  ||  SC: Waqf Tribunals Cannot Hear Claims over Properties Not Listed or Registered under Waqf Act    

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