Supreme Court of India
T. JAYAKUMARversusA. GOPU & ANR.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1069
- Decided
- 22 September 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
Participation in the selection process does not bar the authority from later disqualifying a candidate for application defects, and the principle of estoppel is inapplicable; the authority's decision was not unreasonable, so the Tribunal and High Court orders were set aside.
Summary
The case concerned the appointment of an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. Respondent No.1 submitted an unsigned application within the deadline and a signed second application after the deadline. Although he was called for interview, the authority rejected both applications and appointed the appellant. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Madras High Court set aside the authority’s decision, holding that the late and unsigned applications should be treated as timely. The Supreme Court held that participation in the selection process does not preclude the authority from later deeming an application defective, that estoppel does not apply, and that the authority’s discretion was not unreasonable or arbitrary. Consequently, the Tribunal and High Court orders were set aside and the postal authorities were directed to find a suitable vacancy for Respondent No.1.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate who has been allowed to participate in the selection process can later be held ineligible due to defects in the application such as lack of signature or late submission.
- Whether the principle of estoppel bars the selection authority from rejecting the candidate after allowing interview participation.
- Whether the authority's rejection of both applications was unreasonable, arbitrary, or violative of natural justice, warranting judicial review.
- Whether the High Court erred in directing that the second application be treated as part and parcel of the first.
- Whether the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court should be set aside.
Subjects
service lawselection processappointmentapplication defectestoppeljudicial reviewadministrative discretionrecruitmentpostmasterCentral Administrative Tribunal
Judgment
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 791
~
T. JAYAKUMAR A
v.
A. GOPU & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5766 of 2008)
) SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
' B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
Service Law - Selection/Appointment - Application of
candidate not in order and another application not submitted
within time - Candidate permitted to participate in selection c
process - Not selected - Challenging selection/appointment
of the successful candidate -Authority taking the plea that his
applications were not acceptable being not in order/within time
- Held: Permission to participate in selection process cannot
...... be a bar for holding the candidate ineligible for selection at a
D
later stage - Principle of estoppel is not applicable to such
cases - In the facts, decision of Authority for not accepting the
applications of the candidate, was not unreasonable or arbi-
trary- High Court acted beyond the scope of judicial review in
holding that the authority should have treated the second ap-
plication as part and parcel of first application - However, in E
the peculiar facts of the case, direction issued to Authority
concerned, to find suitable post for respondent No. 1 and if
such post not available, to accommodate him in the next va-
cancy for the post - Estoppel - Judicial Review.
F
Respondent No. 2-Authority, issued notice for filling
up the pqst of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master
(EDBPM). Respondent No. 1 submitted his application for
the same within time. But the application was unsigned.
Therefore, he submitted second application. But the same
G
was not submitted within time. Respondent No. 1 was
called for the interview. Ultimately appellant was selected
and appointed for the post. Respondent No. 1 challenged
his appointment. Central Administrative Tribunal allowed
791 H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A the application holding that having called respondent No.
1 for interview, it was not open to the Authority to exclude
him from consideration on the plea that his application
was not in order/received beyond time. High Court dis-
" ,.
missed the writ petition holding that the Authority ought
B . to have accepted the second application of respondent
No. 1, as deemed to have been received within time. Hence
the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
c HELD: 1.1 The concerned Authority had not exer-
cised its discretion unreasonably and arbitrarily in reject-
ing both the applications submitted by respondent No.1.
[Para 12] [798-E-F]
1.2 There is no principle of law under which once a
D candidate is allowed participation in the selection pro- .,....
cess, the selection authority is precluded from examin-
ing whether his application was complete, in order, within
time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application
form that renders the candidate ineligible might be over-
E looked in the initial screening and as a result he may be
called for interview and may get a chance to take part in
selection process but that alone does not mean that the
candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later
stage once the defect in the application comes to light. It
F is surely open to the Tribunal to examine whether the rea-
son assigned by the selection authority for holding a can-
didate ineligible for selection was valid or unreasonable
and arbitrary. If the reason for excluding a candidate from
the selection process is found to be unreasonable or ar-
bitrary, the Tribunal may certainly intervene, but if the rea-
G
son itself is valid, the tribunal cannot interfere simply be-
cause the candidate was allowed participation in the se-
lection process by being called for interview. The prin-
ciple of estoppel has no application in such a case. [Para
10] [797 F-H, 798 A-BJ
H
T. JAYAKUMAR v. A. GOPU & ANR. 793
'
1.3 In the facts of the case, it cannot be said that the A
decision of the concerned authority, not to accept ariy of
the two applications of respondent No. 1, the first being
invalid for want of signature and the other being beyond
> time, was totally unreasonable and arbitrary. As a matter
of fact, the High Court has not come to any such finding, B
and yet the High Court observed that the second applica-
tion ought to have been treated as 'part and parcel' of the
first application and thus substituted its own view in the
matter for the view taken by the respondent-Authority.
Such an approach might have been permissible for the
departmental appellate authority (provided there was c
one) but it was plainly beyond the scope of judicial re-
view. [Para 11) [798 C-E]
2. Having regard to the special facts of the case viz.
the Tribunal and the High Court by interfering in favour of
··~
respondent No. 1 naturally gave him hope and expecta- D
tions that he would be harbouring for eight years; and
that he was excluded from consideration simply because
he inadvertently omitted to put his signature on his appli- ·
cation form, the concerned postal authorities are directed
to find out a suitable vacant position against which re- E
spondent No.1 may be adjusted. In case no suitable post
is available at present, he should be accommodated in
the next vacancy of EDBPM arising in future. [Para 14)
[798 G-H] [799 A-BJ
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5766 F
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.2.2005 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 11229 of 2001
T. Harish Kumar for the Appellant. G
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Jayanth Mathraj, K.K. Senthilvelan,
'f'
P.V. Yogeswaran, Dr. Charu Walikhanna, Anil Katiyar and V.K.
Verma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
A AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Leave granted
2. A little lapse by the respondent authority (Respondent
no.2 before this court) coupled with a somewhat unwarranted
interference by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Bench, that was affirmed by the Madras High Court has led to a
B situation where this court is faced with the competing rights of
the appellant and respondent no.1.
3. The matter in controversy is the appointment as Extra
Departmental Branch Post Master of Kadambadi village. The
c concerned authority issued a notice for filling up the position on
22 December 1999. The last date for receipt of applications
was 5 January 2000. Respondent no.1 submitted his applica-
tion that was received within time on 4-1-2000. On this applica-
tion, however, he omitted to put his signature. Realising his mis-
D take he sent another application duly filled-up and signed by ?>'
him on 4 January 2000 with the request that the second appli-
cation may be treated as part of the first one. The second appli-
cation sent by respondent no.1 was received by the authorities
after 5 January 2000, the last date for submission of applica-
tions. The concerned authorities called three candidates for in-
E terview, including the first respondent, but in the end it was the
appellant who was selected and appointed as EDBPM, village
Kadambadi.
4. Respondent no.1 challenged the selection and appoint-
F ment of the appellant before the Tribunal in O.A.no.346/2000. It
was submitted on his behalf that he was better qualified than
the appellant since in the SSLC examination he secured 272/
500 marks compared to 269/500 by the appellant. He also
owned a big house and sufficient agricultural land in the village.
G Hence, the action of the respondent authority in selecting the
appellant for appointment in preference to him was quite bad
and unreasonable. On behalf of the respondent authority it was
stated that the application of respondent no.1 that was received
within time was invalid as it did not bear his signature and his
second application was received after the last date for submis-
H
... T. JAYAKUMAR v. A. GOPU & ANR.
[AFTAB ALAM, J.]
795
sion of applications. That being the position his candidature A
was not acceptable.
5. The Tribunal did not accept the plea taken by the re-
spondent authority. It upheld the claim of Respondent no.1 and
> by judgment and order dated 23 April 2001 allowed the OA and
directed the concerned authority to accept his application as B
received within time and to consider his case for appointment
as EDBPM.
6. The judgment ahd order passed by Tribunal was sought
to be challenged by the appellant before the Madras High Court c
in WP no. 11229 of 2001. Apparently at the time of admission
of the writ petition the High Court stayed the operation of the
., order of Tribunal but finally the writ petition was dismissed by
judgment and·order dated 1 February 2005. Against the High
._,,. Court order the appellant filed the SLP giving rise to this ap-
D
peal. In the SLP on 6 May 2005 this Court passed an order for
maintaining status quo as obtaining on that date. As a result of
the interim orders passed by the High Court and by this Court
the appellant has been able to continue in service since his
appointment on 9 February 2000. Another fact we are unable to
ignore is that now the age of the appellant is thirty eight years; E
in other words he has crossed the age bar for government em-
ployment.
7. Coming now to the orders passed by the Tribunal and
the High Court. Both the tribunal and the High Court interfered F
in favour of respondent no. 1 but for slightly different reasons.
The Tribunal did not take the view that the first application sub-
mitted by the first respondent was valid even though it was un-
signed or that the second application cured the omission and
the lacuna in the first application or even that the second appli-
G
cation should have been accepted even though it was received
beyond time. What seems to have weighed with the Tribunal is
'(
that respondent no.1 was called for interview along with the other
two candidates whose applications were fully in order and were
received in time. The Tribunal took the view that having called
H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 13 $.C.R.
A respondent no. 1 for interview it was no longer open to the con-
cerned authority to exclude him from consideration on the plea
that his application was not in order/was received beyond time.
It appears that the Tribunal summoned the relevant office record
and found that on 9 February 2000 the concerned authority made "
B the following note:
"In response to the Local notification 7 applications
received. Among them the applications received from R.
Lakshmi (101 c). R. Durairaj (104C). T.Selvakumar(105C)
and S. Durairaj (106C) after the last date fixed on
C 05.01.2000 are not considered.
Only three candidates who have applied for the post within
the last date fixed are brought into the tabular statement."
8. In light of the note the Tribunal came to observe and
D hold as follows:
"Having treated the application of the applicant as an
application received within the last date, the first
respondent cannot go back and say that his application
cannot be considered as the same was received after the
E expiry of the last date. The action of the first respondent
in treating the application of the applicant as one submitted
within the last date in this note shows that the original
application received on 04.01.2000 has been treated as
an application submitted in time in view of the subsequent
F application duly signed by the applicant. The action of the
first respondent in not selecting the applicant on the ground
of delay in submitting the application is not just and proper
under the given circumstances."
G The High Court seems to have taken a slightly different
view. It has proceeded on the basis that the concerned author-
ity ought to have accepted the application of respondent no. 1
as deemed to have been received within time. The copy of the
High Court order supplied to us is full or errors (presumably ty-
H pographical), so much so that in parts it is almost unintelligible.
T. JAYAKUMAR v. A. GOPU & ANR. 797
~
[AFTAB ALAM, J.]
But the view taken by the High Court can be gathered from para· A
graph 7 of the judgment that reads as follows
"No doubt, the first application of the petitioner (sic,
respondent no.1) has become invalid as there is no
,:> signature, however, when the first respondent came to
know of his fault, she (sic) sent another one application B
with signature and with a requisition on 04.01.2000, i.e.,
within the expiry of the last date, it should have been
treated as part and parcel of the first application or added
with the first application as the first respondent send the
second application a requisition to the second c
respondent within the time stipulated. When that was not
done by the second respondent and rejected the
application of the first respondent, we are of the view that
the first respondent sent his application in time and it
..,,. cannot be rejected and therefore the conducting interview D
and it cannot be rejected and therefore, the conducting of
interview and appointment of the petitioner as EDBPM
withoutthe first respondent, is arbitrary and against the
principles of natural justice."
(emphasis added) E
9. We are unable to share either the view taken by the
Tribunal or agree with the approach of the High Court.
10. We are not aware any principle of. law under which
" once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection pro- F
cess the selection authority is precluded from examining whether
his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise
acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the
candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screen-
ing and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a G
chance to take part in selection process but that alone does not
·( mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection
at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light.
It is surely open to the Tribunal to examine whether the reason
assigned by the selection authority for holding a candidate in- H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 13 S.C.R.
A eligible for selection was valid or unreasonable and arbitrary. If
the reason for excluding a candidate from the selection pro-
cess is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary the Tribunal may
certainly intervene but if the reason itself is valid the tribunal
cannot interfere simply because the candidate was allowed
B participation in the selection process by being called for inter- ..
view. The prini::iple of estoppel has no application in such a case.
11. We are equally unable to appreciate the approach of
the High Court. In the facts of the case it cannot be said that the
decision of the concerned authority not to accept any of the two
c applications of respondent no. 1, the first being invalid for want
of signature and the other being beyond time, was totally unrea-
sonable and arbitrary. As a matter of fact the High Court has not
come to any such finding. And yet the High Court observed that
the second application ought to have been treated as 'part and
D parcel' of the first application and thus substituted its own view
in the matter for the view taken by the respondent authority. Such
an approach might have been permissible for the departmental
-
appellate authority (provided there was one) but it was plainly
beyond the scope of judicial review.
E 12. In the facts of the case we are satisfied that the con-
cerned authority had not exercised its discretion unreasonably
and arbitrarily in rejecting both the applications submitted by
respondent no.1 and any interference in the matter was hardly
called for by the Tribunal or the High Court.
F ...
13. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions and
the materials on record we are unable to sustain the orders of
the High Court and the Tribunal. The two orders are, accord-
ingly, set aside.
G 14. This leaves us with respondent no.1 who is hopefully
pursuing the matter for over eight years. The Tribunal and the
High Court by interfering in his favour naturally gave him hope
and expectations that he would be harbouring for eight years.
We also cannot overlook the fact he was excluded from consid-
H eration simply because he inadvertently omitted to put his sig-
T. JAYAKUMAR v. A. GOPU & ANR. 799
[AFTAB ALAM, J.]
hature on his application form. Having regard to the special facts A
of the case the concerned postal authorities are directed to find
out a $uitable vacant position against which respondent no.1
may be adjusted. In case no suitable post is available at present
~ he should be accommodated in the next vacancy of EDBPM
arising in future. B
15. This appeal is allowed subject to aforesaid observa•
tions and directions.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search