Summary
A more meritorious candidate was denied appointment because his government employer delayed issuing an NOC despite his timely application. He attended the interview under an interim order and supplied the NOC before actual appointments. The Court held that he could not suffer for the employer’s lapse and directed appointment with continuity for seniority and pay fixation, but no back wages. Exercising Article 142 on the peculiar facts, it protected the innocent existing appointee by accommodation against another vacancy.
Issues
- Whether employer-caused delay in issuing an NOC justified denying appointment to the more meritorious candidate.
- Whether the existing appointee’s service could be protected while granting relief.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe existing appointee, who was without fault and had served for over three years, was protected through accommodation against another vacant post on the peculiar facts. (¶¶ 7.4, 8)
Held
- The candidate applied for the required NOC well before interview, pursued relief, was provisionally interviewed under a judicial order and produced the certificate immediately upon receipt before actual appointments. The delay was attributable to his employer, not to him. (¶ 7.1-7.2)
- The candidate scored more than the last appointed candidate. Denial of appointment for the employer’s failure to issue the certificate in time was unjustified. The High Court erred in refusing substantive relief despite recognising and imposing costs for the employer’s lapse. (¶ 7.2-7.3)
- The existing appointee had committed no wrongdoing, had served for years and faced serious prejudice if removed; other sanctioned vacancies existed. Article 142 was exercised to continue him by accommodation elsewhere, rather than displace him. (¶ 7.4)
- Appointment of the appellant was directed within two weeks, with continuity for seniority, pay fixation and related purposes but without back wages on the no-work-no-pay principle. The Single Judge’s costs against the employer were preserved; otherwise the adverse judgments were set aside. (¶ 8)
Result
Appeal allowed; appointment within two weeks with continuity but no back wages; existing appointee protected against another vacancy; earlier costs against employer maintained.