TITLE: MANOJ KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2679/2024 ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 5278 /2019
DECIDED ON: 20 FEBRUARY 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta states that “that while the primary duty of constitutional courts remains the control of power, including setting aside of administrative actions that may be illegal or arbitrary, it must be acknowledged that such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon the courts, as a secondary measure, to address the injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions. This concomitant duty to take reasonable measures to restitute the injured is our overarching constitutional purpose. This is how we have read our constitutional text, and this is how we have built our precedents on the basis of our preambular objective to secure justice”
Brief Facts:
Manoj Kumar appealed for the position of a primary school teacher after the Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute altered the selection process, replacing interviews with marks for additional qualifications. The appellant contested the denial of 6 marks for his Post Graduate (PG) Degree, arguing it was arbitrary. The High Court and Division Bench upheld the decision, citing minimal judicial interference in academic matters. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation and Analysis:
The Supreme Court’s analysis in this case primarily revolved around the deviation from the original selection process and the denial of marks for the appellant’s Post Graduate (PG) Degree. The Court scrutinized the discretionary powers reserved by the Institute under Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular. It categorically rejected the Institute’s argument that these clauses provided unbridled discretion, emphasizing that such provisions did not empower the Institute to introduce new criteria arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the contention that a PG Degree should be limited to a “relevant subject.” It meticulously examined the additional qualification marks allocation, noting the distinct categories under which PG Degree was included. The Court observed that if specialization requirements were imposed on a PG Degree, it would render the entire category redundant, defeating the purpose of providing a PG Degree independently with a specific mark allocation.
The Court underscored the importance of judicial review, even in academic matters, and rejected the High Court’s reliance on the principle of minimal interference. It stated that while respecting the flexibility in academic matters, the courts must not allow arbitrary actions to go unchecked. The judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were set aside on the grounds that they failed to adequately analyze the prescription of additional qualifications and the distinct marks allocated to each category.
Interestingly, the Court faced a practical challenge due to the closure of the school for which the appellant sought appointment. Acknowledging the time elapsed during the legal proceedings and the subsequent development of school closure, the Court explored the concept of restitution. While recognizing the impracticality of appointing the appellant, it awarded him monetary compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 and imposed additional costs of Rs. 25,000.
This decision reflects the Court’s commitment to ensuring the lawfulness of executive decisions, addressing arbitrary actions, and providing reasonable measures for restitution, even in situations where the direct appointment may not be feasible due to changed circumstances. The judgment contributes to the evolving jurisprudence on the role of courts in administrative matters, emphasizing the importance of fairness and justice in the exercise of governmental powers.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
