Jagpal Singh Thakur vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Forest and Environment Through Secretary
- Neutral2017 INSC 646
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a public authority has granted relaxation or exemption from a qualification requirement to similarly situated candidates, it cannot arbitrarily refuse to extend the same relaxation or exemption to another candidate in an identical or substantially similar factual position; the authority must treat such cases uniformly or provide a rational, non-arbitrary basis for differentiation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9291/2017 [@ SLP (C) No.14446/2017]
JAGPAL SINGH THAKUR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Mr. Mishra Sourabh, learned counsel appears for the
State of Madhya Pradesh and accepts notice.
3. This is a case where the appellant was not
regularized as a Forest Guard on the ground that he had
contracted marriage before attaining the age of 21 years.
Apparently, there is only a difference of a few days.
4. One of the grounds taken by the appellant in this
case is that several others have been granted relaxation.
5. Four such instances have been pointed out before this
Court, they are Narayan Prasad Raikwar, Babulal Carpenter,
Raj Kishore Tiwari and Bhagatram Raikwar.
6. If that be so, there is no point in keeping this Signature Not Verified
Appeal pending before this Court and we dispose of this Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2017.07.26 16:48:57 IST Reason:
Appeal with a direction to the authority concerned to
consider the case of the appellant also in the same way as 2
the four persons referred to above and grant consequential
benefits of regular appointment etc., if the same has been
granted to other referred to above.
7. Needful be done within three months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court.
9. The Civil Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
…................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
.................J. [R. BANUMATHI] JULY 19, 2017;
NEW DELHI.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free