SC quashes notification that cancelled job of judicial officer who couldn’t join due to lockdown

New Delhi, February 26

The Supreme Court has quashed the notification cancelling the appointment of a judicial officer from Bihar, who could not join as a probationary civil judge on the scheduled date due to the nationwide lockdown in 2020.

Judicial officer Rakesh Kumar, a member of the scheduled caste community, got stuck in Nagpur during the lockdown and could not get a train or flight to reach Biraul in Darbhanga for joining on time.

He had to ultimately travel 1,100 kms by a taxi to reach the destination, according to his lawyer.

A bench of Justice KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy took the notice of the fact that Covid-19 was prevalent in the country at that time and travel restrictions were put in place.

The bench said that during that time, travel both by air and by train was prohibited and it is not in dispute that flights were not permitted till May 25, 2020.

It, then, directed setting aside of the Patna High Court judgment by which it dismissed Kumar’s plea to quash the notification.

“The impugned notification is quashed to the extent the appellant’s candidature is cancelled. The impugned orders will stand quashed,” the bench said.

Kumar’s appeal said that he had participated in the 30th Bihar Judicial Services Examination and was appointed as probationary Civil Judge (Junior Division) on January 6, 2020.

The SC directed that the appointment of Kumar be restored subject to the condition that he will not be entitled to claim seniority/backwages as has been, in fact, held out by him in written undertaking.

The appellant will be granted posting within a period of four weeks from today and will be subject to all the conditions which have been incorporated in written undertaking, it said.

“The terms of the undertaking will be incorporated in the order by which he is permitted to join. The appellant must necessarily undergo the requisite training as will be found appropriate and ordered by the High Court,” the bench said.

Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Kumar, submitted that this is a case where Kumar was prevented from joining on account of reasons beyond his control and during the first version of Covid-19 lockdown.

The conditions in Nagpur where he was, were so stringent that he could not even go to the post offic, he said.

Kumar, in his appeal filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil, against the Patna High Court order, has said that after failing to get tickets for a train and flight in Nagpur, he had to travel through road route in a taxi for 11,00 kilometre to Darbhanga incurring a cost of Rs 26,000.

The top court agreed that it’s true that there is no absolute right with the candidate to insist that he should be permitted to join beyond the date. “So, it is not as if we can describe the orders of the High Court refusing to permit the appellant to join as a perverse or totally illegal decision.” “While it is true that, again, we are not oblivious of the fact that first representation made by the appellant is on June 8, 2020, even though deadline set by the High Court was that the appellant should join in April, 2020, we cannot ignore the reality, namely, that restrictions imposed consequent upon Covid 19 enveloping the nation were rather severe and stringent”, it said.

“It is not disputed that there were restrictions in the matter of travel by train and priority was given to migrants. Likewise, it is not in the region of dispute that unlock 1.0 came into effect from June 1, 2020. There were other restrictions in the form of a pass to be secured for traveling outside the district where the person was located”, the bench noted.

It said at that time there was considerable confusion also about what a person could do and what a person could not do during the time of the lockdown.

“It was an unprecedented situation which affected the nation to which Nagpur was certainly not impervious. We would think that in the facts of this case, besides noticing also the fact that the appellant hailing from a marginalized community has been recruited and has been appointed to the judicial services of the State, we should take a view which conduces to justice in a larger sense and for his entry and for his continuation in service…,” it said.