Court must not become a source of injustice, rules Punjab and Haryana HC

Holding that a court of law must never become a source of injustice, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the reinstatement of an employee terminated five years into his service after sympathetic consideration of his peculiar case — he had applied under the ex-servicemen (ESM) category despite being a dependent.

Advertisement

The Bench made it clear that technical errors could not defeat substantive justice, especially when deliberate fraud or mala fide intent was not involved. “The matter needs a more practical approach rather than text book enforcement,” Vinod S Bhardwaj asserted. The verdict holds wider significance for employees having long served in public posts despite inadvertent errors in their selection process.

Justice Bhardwaj observed that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission and other respondents, prima-facie, might not be labelled as “wholly illegal”, but “there is also a possibility of lack of human understanding”.

The Bench added that the facts did not suggest or reflect an actual intent of fraud or to unlawfully avail the benefit of the fruits meant for other. Justice Bhardwaj added that the petitioner had submitted eligibility certificate clearly declaring his dependent status, and had been allowed to join service, complete probation, and pass all required tests without objection. Five years later, the commission withdrew its recommendation.

“The petitioner served for nearly five years before being removed and the advertisement itself is nearly a decade old. Two other selection processes had been completed in the meanwhile, to which the petitioner had no need to apply then, being already in job. He, thus, lost out on vital career option and now has a grown up girl-child,” Justice Bhardwaj observed.

Displaying the humanitarian side of the law, the Bench observed it would cause “extreme hardship” to deny relief. “It would also be impracticable to assume that the petitioner, being married and with children, would be full of same zeal, enthusiasm and academic competence in competing with fresh graduates/passouts, who might also be vying and competing for the posts in the advertisements that might be issued henceforth,” he added.

The court also noted that the petitioner had already missed two subsequent recruitment drives during the years he was in service and might hit the upper age limit before the issuance of a fresh advertisement. Before parting, the court balanced the equities by directing the respondents to offer appointment to another candidate “undisputedly higher in merit than the petitioner”, while adding “a court of law that imparts justice cannot be a source of injustice". Petitioner Manender Singh also consented to forgo seniority benefits in the other candidate’s favour.