Kumari Laxmi Saroj vs State Of U.P.

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)

JUDGMENT

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 Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.12.15 under: ­ 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:

Petitioner/ Date of MP Application MP Date of Date of UP Appellant Council for UP Council Application Council

4 No. Registratio Council NOC to UPSSSC Registratio n Registratio Furnished n n

1. Kumari 17.09.2021 18.09.2021 02.12.202 21.12.202 14.02.2022 Laxmi Saroj 1 1

2. Kumari 23.11.2021 23.12.2021 28.12.202 26.12.202 03.06.2022 Pooja Rani 1 1

3. Hema 12.09.2017 22.11.2021 29.11.202 31.12.202 24.03.2022 Lata Mishra 1 1

4. Durga 12.09.2017 22.11.2021 29.11.202 31.12.202 16.03.2022 Sharma 1 1 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 Narender Singh (supra),

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

Narender Singh (supra), the impugned judgment and

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