Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order  ||  Supreme Court: Certiorari Can Quash a Tribunal Decision That is Grossly Perverse  ||  Supreme Court: Informant’s Consent is Not Required to Quash a Case Settled With the Victim  ||  Madras High Court: False Posts Against a Minister are Not an Offence Without Intent to Cause Alarm  ||  Delhi High Court: Police Cannot Pick and Choose Among Accused Persons for Arrest  ||  J&K High Court: Bar Associations are Not ‘State’ under Article 12 and are Outside Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Calcutta High Court: Third Parties Can Challenge Inaction Against Unauthorised Construction  ||  Madras High Court: Being an Advocate Does Not Mean a Person Cannot Commit an Offence  ||  Delhi High Court: Husband Cannot Reopen Settled Marital Disputes to Avoid Maintenance Liability  ||  Calcutta High Court: State Cannot Deny CRMI Seats to Foreign Medical Graduates Citing Stipend Costs    

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