Summary
The Institute acted arbitrarily by refusing the appellant additional marks for his postgraduate degree under a criterion absent from its notification. Although the school had closed and appointment was no longer possible, the Court set aside the High Court judgments and awarded compensation and costs.
Issues
- Whether the Institute could restrict marks for a postgraduate degree to a degree in a relevant subject when its notification imposed no such requirement.
- What relief was appropriate after the school closed during the litigation.
Provisions considered
- Preamble, Constitution of IndiaThe Court grounded its duty to provide reasonable restitution for injury caused by arbitrary State action in the constitutional objective of securing justice. (¶ 19)
Held
- Reservation of flexibility to review or shortlist candidates does not confer unbridled discretion to add a new qualification criterion. The notification treated a postgraduate degree as a general additional qualification; specialization was specified separately for professional qualifications. Denying marks on an unstated relevant-subject condition was arbitrary. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Judicial review must address arbitrary executive action even when the originally sought appointment has become impossible through passage of time. Courts may also take reasonable measures to restitute resulting injury. (¶¶ 17, 19, 20)
- Where appointment could not be ordered because the only relevant school had closed, compensation was an appropriate restitutory measure. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgments set aside. The Institute was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 compensation within six weeks and costs of Rs. 25,000.