Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds recruitment fairness

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that every recruitment exercise is bound by the constitutional mandate of equality, fairness and transparency. No employer or agency can claim exemption, and the onus lies squarely on the recruiting body to justify exclusion where a candidate is declared ineligible or disqualified.

The assertion came as Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj ordered a lump sum compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh to a candidate whose candidature for appointment as a Senior Secondary Recruit in the Indian Navy was rejected at the stage of the Physical Fitness Test (PFT) without reasons. The compensation was directed to be paid within three months, failing which it would carry 6 per cent annual interest.

“Failure by respondents in disclosing the complete material and establishing a valid justification in support of their action in holding the petitioner ineligible and unqualified for further participation is bad in law and is liable to be set aside,” the Bench declared.

The petitioner-candidate was represented by advocate Padam Kant Dwivedi.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted more than seven years had passed since the rejection, during which the petitioner had crossed the maximum age bar. “Since the respondents, by their act, have wrongfully deprived the petitioner of his entitlement for further consideration for appointment, the interest of justice would be well balanced in case the petitioner is suitably compensated for this act of wrongful ousting from the zone of consideration to public appointment,” the court observed.

Justice Bhardwaj added the respondents could not claim to have acted with fairness and transparency while withholding the primary material and documents laying the foundation of their decision to reject the petitioner’s candidature. “The non-disclosure of such essential particulars and primary documents not only undermines the respondents’ stand but also prejudices the petitioner’s rights,” the court added.

Elaborating, the Bench observed there was no indication in the result sheet that the petitioner failed to complete the 1.6 km run within the prescribed time of seven minutes, was unable to perform the requisite 20 squats, or failed to execute the prescribed number of push-ups.

“In the absence of any such particulars, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature stands unsupported by demonstrable objective material, thereby rendering the decision non-transparent and susceptible to challenge on the grounds of arbitrariness and violation of the principles of natural justice,” Justice Bhardwaj added.

The Bench added a mere sweeping assertion that the petitioner was ‘unqualified’ unaccompanied by any disclosure of the documentary evidence proving the same could not withstand the test of transparency and fairness. “Such a bald statement, devoid of particulars, scarcely meets, let alone satisfies, the rigorous standard of fairness, merit, transparency and judicial scrutiny required to uphold the rejection of a person’s candidature,” the court added

Justice Bhardwaj concluded that the “conscious withholding of information and failure to assign specific reasons despite ample opportunities, reflects only an adamant uncorroborated empty stand.”