Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. vs S.P. Satyanarayana
- SCC(1998) 8 SCC 533
- AIRAIR 1998 SC 2962
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employer adopts a policy to absorb displaced employees subject to eligibility criteria, and a candidate fails the prescribed test, the High Court cannot direct the employer to appoint the candidate merely on grounds of personal hardship or financial need, absent any showing that the employer's action was arbitrary or violated constitutional guarantees such as Article 14. An employer's decision not to conduct a re-test for a candidate who has failed an eligibility test is not arbitrary merely because the candidate requests it, and the employer is under no legal obligation to grant such a request in the absence of a challenge to the validity of the test itself or the result.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
3. The respondent was earlier working as a Cleaner with a private bus operator. The said route was nationalised and, therefore, he became a displaced employee. Pursuant to the policy adopted by the appellant to absorb such displaced employes, subject to their eligibility, the respondent was also allowed to appear for a technical test to ascertain his eligibility. The respondent failed in that test and therefore he was not absorbed. He then made a representation to the appellant -Corporation to hold a re-test for him and to absorb him as a Cleaner. As his representation was not accepted, he filed Writ Petition No. 16818/92 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh.
4. His Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court on the ground that he has no other alternative employment and has to maintain his old parents, wife and children and, therefore, he deserved to be observed and appointed by the Corporation. The Corporation was directed to consider the case of the respondent and to pass an order within two months, appointing him on a suitable post.
5. The Corporation is challenging the order passed by the High Court on the ground that in absence of any justification no such direction could have been given by the High Court to the Corporation. It was not the case of the respondent that the action of the Corporation was arbitrary or otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the Corporation deserves to be accepted. The respondent had not challenged the validity of the test or the result. In his representation made to the Corporation, he had merely asked for a re-test. He wanted one more chance for being considered for absorption in the appellant's service. The appellant was under no obligation to hold a special test for him. In view of these facts and circumstances, the High Court should not have directed the Corporation to appoint the respondent on a suitable post even though he had failed in the test.
6. We, therefore, allow this appeal. set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. But in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Corporation to give an opportunity to the respondent to appear again in a test to ascertain his eligibility. The appellant shall do so within a period of three months from today. If the respondent gets through the test, then the appellant shall appoint him as and when a vacancy becomes available.
7. No order as to costs.
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