Supreme Court Upholds Appointment for EBPGC Category Despite Administrative Lapses
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated January 31, 2024, upheld the decision of the High Court in granting an appointment to Subhash Chand under the EBPGC category, despite delays and administrative errors by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). The Court directed that the appointment order be issued to Subhash Chand within a month, but clarified that he would not be entitled to back wages for the intervening period.
Background of the Case
The case originated from the Haryana Staff Selection Commission’s advertisement for the post of PGT (Political Science) under H.E.S.II (Group B Services) in 2015. Subhash Chand, who had initially applied under the SBC (Special Backward Classes) category, later sought to change his category to EBPGC (Economically Backward Persons in General Category) in 2018, after being informed that his SBC category was no longer recognized due to a High Court order.
Despite Subhash Chand securing 118 marks in the written test, he was not initially selected as the cut-off for the General category was 129 marks. The dispute centered around the fact that his category change application was filed after the cut-off date, and this had led to his exclusion from the EBPGC category reservation. Subhash Chand filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2018 seeking his appointment in the EBPGC category.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that Subhash Chand be appointed under the General category in the EBPGC reservation. This order was later upheld by the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
- Whether Subhash Chand’s application for the EBPGC category could be considered valid despite being submitted after the cut-off date.
- Whether the administrative lapses by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission prevented Subhash Chand from applying under the correct category.
- Whether the relief granted by the High Court, directing appointment, was justified in light of the procedural errors.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Haryana Staff Selection Commission)
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission argued that:
- Subhash Chand did not apply under the EBPGC category before the cut-off date and therefore his application under that category should not be considered.
- The State Government’s earlier orders restricted the application of the SBC category and the consequent application of the EBPGC category.
- Subhash Chand failed to meet the eligibility requirements and the High Court’s decision was inconsistent with established norms.
Respondent’s Arguments (Subhash Chand)
Subhash Chand’s counsel argued that:
- The delays and procedural lapses in processing the applications were caused by the State Government’s failure to implement the directions of the High Court.
- As a result of these lapses, he was unable to apply under the EBPGC category before the cut-off date, which was beyond his control.
- The relief granted by the High Court, which was equitable and just, should be upheld to prevent injustice.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court closely examined the facts of the case, particularly focusing on the issue of administrative delay and the fairness of the relief granted to Subhash Chand.
1. Administrative Lapses and State’s Responsibility
“The State Government and Haryana Staff Selection Commission failed to comply with the High Court’s order, which resulted in the petitioner not being able to apply under the EBPGC category on time.”
The Court acknowledged that the delays in issuing the certificate and processing the applications were caused by the State’s failure to act promptly and effectively. The Court observed that the responsibility for this lapse lay with the government, which failed to provide the necessary instructions to the Commission in a timely manner.
2. Equitable Relief and Appointment
“In light of the peculiar facts of this case, and the fact that the petitioner was prevented from applying under the EBPGC category due to no fault of his own, the relief granted by the High Court appears just and equitable.”
The Court noted that Subhash Chand’s situation was unique, given the procedural irregularities, and that the High Court’s decision to grant him the post was fair and in line with the principles of justice.
3. Absence of Back Wages
“While the petitioner is entitled to the appointment, the period from the High Court’s order on 10th December 2018 till the issuance of the appointment order will not entitle him to back wages.”
The Court clarified that Subhash Chand would not be entitled to back wages, but the period of delay would count for promotion and retirement benefits in the future.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission and upheld the High Court’s order. The Court directed:
“The appointment order for Subhash Chand shall be issued in terms of the impugned judgment dated 10th December 2018 by the High Court within one month of the uploading of this judgment on the website.”
The Court also directed that Subhash Chand would not be entitled to back wages for the period between the High Court’s order and the issuance of the appointment order, but the period would be considered for future promotions and retirement benefits.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- The government’s failure to comply with its own legal and procedural obligations can lead to delayed justice for candidates, which must be rectified in an equitable manner.
- Even if a candidate misses a deadline due to no fault of their own, the court can intervene to ensure that their rights are protected.
- The principle of equity allows courts to issue fair relief, even if it involves exceptions to standard procedural norms.
- Back wages are not automatically granted in cases where delays are caused by administrative lapses, but such periods are considered for future promotions and benefits.
This ruling highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring that candidates are not penalized for procedural errors beyond their control, while also balancing the interests of justice and fairness.
Petitioner Name: Subhash Chand.Respondent Name: Haryana Staff Selection Commission.Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.Place Of Incident: Haryana.Judgment Date: 31-01-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: subhash-chand-vs-haryana-staff-select-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-31-01-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Ujjal Bhuyan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2024
See all petitions in 2024 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
