High Court Judgment Overturned: Haryana Teacher Secures Appointment After Delay in NOC Issuance

The case of Narender Singh vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. is a significant ruling concerning employment disputes in the education sector. The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Narender Singh, a teacher who was denied appointment due to the delayed issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by his employer. This judgment underscores the principle that an applicant should not suffer due to the delay caused by administrative lapses.

Background of the Case

In 2016, the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) issued an advertisement for 1,647 posts of Assistant Professor (College Cadre). Narender Singh, a JBT teacher at Government Primary School, Chhapar, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (History). As per the advertisement, candidates serving in government institutions were required to submit an NOC at the time of the interview.

Singh applied for the NOC on March 22, 2016, through the Principal of his school. However, despite repeated reminders, the NOC was not issued before his interview. Due to this, his result was kept in a sealed cover. The final selection results were announced on December 15, 2017, and appointments were made on July 12, 2018. Singh was not considered for appointment despite scoring higher than the last selected candidate.

He subsequently filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, seeking an order to direct the HPSC to appoint him. The High Court, however, dismissed his petition, holding that he should have pursued the issuance of the NOC more diligently.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Narender Singh)

Singh argued that he had applied for the NOC well in advance and that the delay was solely due to the negligence of the District Elementary Education Officer.
He contended that he had no control over the issuance of the NOC and should not be punished for administrative lapses.
He pointed out that he had scored 64.89 marks in the selection process, while the last selected candidate in his category had only 62.64 marks.
Since the NOC was eventually issued on June 6, 2018, before the final appointments, he should have been considered.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Haryana & HPSC)

The State argued that Singh should have followed up more proactively to obtain the NOC before the interview.
It was submitted that once the selection process was completed, the commission could not reopen the process to accommodate Singh.
The government, however, admitted that there was an administrative lapse in the delayed issuance of the NOC.

Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating:

“There was no delay or lapse on the part of the appellant. The delay in issuing the NOC was solely due to the negligence of the employer, for which the appellant cannot be held responsible.”

The Court further noted:

“Once it is found that there was no fault on the part of the appellant and the last selected candidate had lower marks, denying him appointment would be unjustified.”

The Supreme Court also took into account that the respondent who was appointed in Singh’s place had been working for over three years. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice and ruled:

“The State Government is directed to issue an appointment order to the appellant without disturbing the service of the currently appointed candidate.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the Haryana Public Service Commission and the State Government to appoint Narender Singh as an Assistant Professor (History) within two weeks. However, the Court clarified:

Singh would not be entitled to back wages but would receive continuity of service for the purpose of seniority and pay fixation.
The currently serving respondent would not be disturbed but would be accommodated in another vacant post.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling reinforces the principle that an employee should not suffer due to administrative delays.
Government departments are expected to process NOC requests in a timely manner to prevent similar employment disputes.
The Court’s use of Article 142 ensures that justice is done without harming the interests of other parties.

Petitioner Name: Narender Singh.
Respondent Name: The State of Haryana & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M. R. Shah, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 18-01-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: narender-singh-vs-the-state-of-haryana-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-18-01-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category