Supreme Court: In a civil appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, dismissing the appeal against the Single Judge’s decision, whereby the appellant’s petition against the Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for Persons with Physical Disabilities’ decision of denying appellant’s appointment to the post of primary school teacher was refused to interfere with, the Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Background
Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for Persons with Physical Disabilities (‘Institute’) issued an advertisement in March 2016 calling applications for appointment of primary school teachers. The basic qualification required for the appointment was senior secondary with a two-year diploma or certificate course in ETE/JBT or B.EI.Ed. The final selection was based on an interview. The Institute reserved its right to evaluate, review the process of selection, and shortlist candidates at any stage, and its decision would be final and binding. This discretionary power is notified under Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular.
On 27-04-2016, the Institute issued a notification dispensing with the interview requirement, and prescribed allocation of additional marks for essential qualifications, additional qualifications, essential experience, and the written test. A candidate possessing a Post Graduate Diploma and a Post Graduate Degree would be entitled to allocation of 5 and 6 marks respectively for their additional qualification, however, a person possessing an MPhil degree or a professional qualification in the field would be entitled to allocation of 7 marks for their additional qualification.
The appellant’s case was that when the results were declared in 2017, he was denied 6 marks for the additional qualification of PG Degree on the ground that his PG Degree was not “in the relevant subject”. Appellant contended that denial of 6 marks on new grounds that the PG Degree held by him was not in the relevant subject, is illegal and arbitrary. The Single Judge refused to interfere with the result, relying on University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC 519, wherein it was held that in academic matters, the qualifying criteria must be left to the discretion of the institution concerned. The Division Bench also relied on Neha Anil (supra) and held that in academic matters, the interference of the Court should be minimum.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular cannot be read as to invest the Institute with unbridled discretion to pick and choose candidates by supplying new criteria to the prescribed qualification. The Court called the present matter a classic case of arbitrary action. The Court said that the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench did not analyse the newly prescribed additional qualifications and the distinct marks allocated to each of them. The Court said that when arbitrariness in executive action is challenged, the High Court must examine the issue, of course, within the context of judicial restraint in academic matters. Therefore, the Court held that the decisions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were not sustainable and set aside their judgments. The Court also held that the order denying appointment to the appellant was illegal and arbitrary, so it was set aside.
The Court opined that while the primary duty of the Constitutional Courts is to maintain a check on arbitrary use of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. The Court also added that the Courts must take a secondary measure of addressing the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions.
Delay and Restitution
The Court noted that the impugned order was passed in 2018 and the matter was finally decided by the Court in 2024. The Court said that in the life of litigation, passage of time can stand both as an ally and adversary. The duty of the Court is to transcend the constraints of time and perform the primary duty of a Constitutional Court to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action.
Regarding restitution, the Court said that the inherent difficulty in bridging the time gap between the impugned illegal action and restitution is certainly not rooted in deficiencies within the law or legal jurisprudence but rather in systemic issues inherent in the adversarial judicial process. The Court also discussed that appeals of more than two decades are awaiting consideration, which is distressing. The Bench said that “we must, and we will find a solution to this problem.”
The Court explained that the factors such as filing of a writ petition, service of notice, filing of counter affidavits, final hearing, and then the eventual delivery of judgment, coupled with subsequent appellate procedures, worsen the delays. For the matter at hand, the Court said that the delay in this case, was not unusual. The Court also called for an appropriate system for preserving the rights of the parties till the final decision takes place.
The Court noted that the only primary school run by the Institute for which they sought to fill vacancies was closed in 2023. Hence, the Court considered an alternative measure in the form of monetary compensation and directed the Institute to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and the said amount shall be paid to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the order. The Court also imposed cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
[Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 163, Decided on: 20-02-2024]