KUMARI LAXMI SAROJ vs. STATE OF U.P.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.  9040 OF 2022 (@ SLP(C) NO. 14252 OF 2022) Kumari Laxmi Saroj & Ors.       ...Appellant(S) Versus State of U.P. & Ors.        ...Respondent(S) J U D G M E N T  M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ A.   No.   3993/2022,   by   which,   the   High   Court   has dismissed the said writ petition and refused to issue a writ directing the respondent(s) to appoint them on the post of Health Worker (Female), the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeal.   2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as Signature Not Verified under: ­ Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.12.15 18:15:19 IST Reason: 1 2.1 That  applications  were  invited  vide  advertisement  dated 15.12.2021 for appointment on the post of Health Worker (Female). The last date for submitting the application was 05.01.2022. As per clause 6 of the advertisement, it was inevitable   for   the   candidate   to   possess   the   essential qualifications (educational and other) till the last date of the   application   which   included   a   condition   that   the candidate must have successfully completed one year six months/two years Auxiliary Nurses and Midwives (ANM) training course (including six months training related to obstetrics)  as   per   the   norms   of   the   Nursing   Council  of India and that the candidate was duly registered with the Uttar Pradesh Nurses and Midwife Council, Lucknow (U.P. Council).   All the appellants   filled up their applications forms   through   online   mode   and   appeared   in   the   said examination. The eligibility of the candidate was required to be considered only during verification of the documents. All the appellants were registered with the M.P. Council. All the appellants except one submitted the applications for   the   U.P.   Council   registration.   The   M.P.   Council furnished the NOC. However, the U.P. Council took time to 2 issue   the   registration   and   therefore,   the   respective appellants could not produce the U.P. registration during verification   of   documents.   The   candidatures   of   the appellants were not considered further for appointment on the   ground   that   at   the   time   of   verification   of   the documents they were not duly registered with the Uttar Pradesh   Nurses   and   Midwife   Council,   Lucknow,   and therefore, they were ineligible as they did not possess the essential   qualifications,   as   per   the   advertisement.   The appellants therefore, filed the writ petition before the High Court.  By  the  impugned  judgment  and  order,  the  High Court has dismissed the said writ petition by accepting the stand   taken  on  behalf  of   the   State   that  at  the  time  of verification   of   documents   and/or   even   at   the   time   of submitting the applications forms, they were not registered with U.P. Council and therefore, they are ineligible.        2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the   writ   petition,   the   original   writ   petitioners   have preferred the present appeal by way of special leave.  3 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.  4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the date of advertisement inviting applications was 15.12.2021. The last date of submitting the application was 05.01.2022. It is true that as per the advertisement, a candidate should have   been   registered   with   the   U.P.   Council.   All   the appellants – writ petitioners who were having M.P. Council registration had applied for U.P. Council registration before the date of the advertisement published on 15.12.2021, except for one candidate (namely Kumari Pooja Rani). It took some time for the M.P. Council to issue the NOC and thereafter, it took further time for the U.P. Council to issue the   registration.   The   statement   showing   the   date   of application for U.P. Council registration, issuance of the NOC   by   M.P.   Council,   date   of   application   to   the   U.P. Subordinate  Services  Selection  Commission  and   date  of issuance of the U.P. Council registration in respect of each appellant is as under: 

4

4.1 Thus, because of the late issuance of the registration by the  U.P. Council,  the appellants  could  not produce  the U.P.   Council   registration   either   on   the   last   date   of   the application and/or at the time of verification of documents and therefore, they were held ineligible.  4.2 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that as such, there was no fault on the part of the appellants in not producing the U.P. Council registration either at the time of submitting the applications forms or even at the time of verification of the documents. As such, all the appellants except one had applied   for   U.P.   Council   registration   before   the   date   of advertisement i.e., 15.12.2021. Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer. The issue involved is directly covered by the decision of this Court in the case of   Narender Singh Vs. State of Haryana   and   Ors.;   (2022)   3   SCC   286 .     In   the   said 5 decision, it is observed and held by this Court that once it was found that there was no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant   and/or   there   was   no   fault   of   the appellant/applicant   in   not   producing   the   NOC   at   the relevant time, he cannot be punished for the same. When the aforesaid decision was pressed into service before the High Court on behalf of the appellants, the High Court has not   followed   the   same   by   observing   that   the   directions issued by this Court in the case   (supra), Narender Singh were   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   142   of   the Constitution of India. The aforesaid is a misreading and/or misinterpreting of the judgment of this Court. This Court has specifically laid down the law that if it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot   be   punished   for   no   fault   attributable   to   him. However, as in that case, another candidate/employee was already   appointed,  this   Court  had   protected   his   service also while exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution   of   India.   Therefore,   exercise   of   the   powers under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   was   for protecting the service of another employee – respondent 6 No. 4 in that case. The High Court has as such, mis­read the judgment of this Court.   5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of   (supra),   the   impugned   judgment   and Narender   Singh order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same   deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside   and   is accordingly quashed and set aside.    6. The respondent(s) are directed to appoint the appellants herein   to   the   post   of   Health   Worker   (Female)   within   a period of six weeks from today, if otherwise, they are found meritorious   and   fulfilling   the   other   eligibility   criteria. However,   it   is   made   clear   that   the   appellants   shall   be entitled to all the benefits from the date of their actual appointments.  Present  appeal  is  accordingly  allowed.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.  …………………………………J.                   (M. R. SHAH) 7 …………………………………J.  (HIMA KOHLI) NEW DELHI,  DECEMBER 15, 2022. 8