KUMARI LAXMI SAROJ & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. on 15 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 13.07.2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ A. No. 3993/2022, by which, theHigh Court has dismissed the said writ petition and refused to issue awrit directing the respondent(s) to appoint them on the post of HealthWorker (Female), the original writ petitioners have preferred the presentappeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are asunder: - 2.1 That applications were invited vide advertisement dated15.12.2021 for appointment on the post of Health Worker (Female).The last date for submitting the application was 05.01.2022. As per clause6 of the advertisement, it was inevitable for the candidate to possess theessential qualifications (educational and other) till the last date of theapplication which included a condition that the candidate must havesuccessfully completed one year six months/two years Auxiliary Nursesand Midwives (ANM) training course (including six months trainingrelated to obstetrics) as per the norms of the Nursing Council of Indiaand that the candidate was duly registered with the Uttar Pradesh Nursesand Midwife Council, Lucknow (U.P. Council). All the appellants filledup their applications forms through online mode and appeared in the saidexamination. The eligibility of the candidate was required to be consideredonly during verification of the documents. All the appellants wereregistered with the M.P. Council. All the appellants except one submitted A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe applications for the U.P. Council registration. The M.P. Councilfurnished the NOC. However, the U.P. Council took time to issue theregistration and therefore, the respective appellants could not producethe U.P. registration during verification of documents. The candidaturesof the appellants were not considered further for appointment on theBground that at the time of verification of the documents they were notduly registered with the Uttar Pradesh Nurses and Midwife Council,Lucknow, and therefore, they were ineligible as they did not possess theessential qualifications, as per the advertisement. The appellants therefore,filed the writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgmentand order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition by acceptingCthe stand taken on behalf of the State that at the time of verification ofdocuments and/or even at the time of submitting the applications forms,they were not registered with U.P. Council and therefore, they areineligible.

D2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, theoriginal writ petitioners have preferred the present appeal by way ofspecial leave.

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of theErespective parties at length.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the date ofadvertisement inviting applications was 15.12.2021. The last date ofsubmitting the application was 05.01.2022. It is true that as per theadvertisement, a candidate should have been registered with the U.P.FCouncil. All the appellants – writ petitioners who were having M.P.Council registration had applied for U.P. Council registration before thedate of the advertisement published on 15.12.2021, except for onecandidate (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.GCouncil to issue the registration. The statement showing the date ofapplication for U.P. Council registration, issuance of the NOC by M.P.Council, date of application to the U.P. Subordinate Services SelectionCommission and date of issuance of the U.P. Council registration inrespect of each appellant is as under:

H

4.1 Thus, because of the late issuance of the registration by theU.P. Council, the appellants could not produce the U.P. Council registrationeither on the last date of the application and/or at the time of verificationof documents and therefore, they were held ineligible.

4.2 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that as such, there was nofault on the part of the appellants in not producing the U.P. Councilregistration either at the time of submitting the applications forms oreven at the time of verification of the documents. As such, all theappellants except one had applied for U.P. Council registration beforethe date of advertisement i.e., 15.12.2021. Therefore, for no fault(s) oftheirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer. The issueinvolved is directly covered by the decision of this Court in the case ofNarender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; (2022) 3 SCC286. In the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court that onceit was found that there was no lapse/delay on the part of the applicantand/or there was no fault of the appellant/applicant in not producing theNOC at the relevant time, he cannot be punished for the same. Whenthe aforesaid decision was pressed into service before the High Courton behalf of the appellants, the High Court has not followed the same byobserving that the directions issued by this Court in the case NarenderSingh (supra), were in exercise of powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of India. The aforesaid is a misreading and/or misinterpretingof the judgment of this Court. This Court has specifically laid down thelaw that if it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of theapplicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him. However,as in that case, another candidate/employee was already appointed, thisCourt had protected his service also while exercising the powers under A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

AArticle 142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, exercise of the powersunder Article 142 of the Constitution of India was for protecting theservice of another employee – respondent No. 4 in that case. The HighCourt has as such, mis-read the judgment of this Court.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above andBapplying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Narender Singh(supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and isaccordingly quashed and set aside.

6. The respondent(s) are directed to appoint the appellants hereinCto the post of Health Worker (Female) within a period of six weeks fromtoday, if otherwise, they are found meritorious and fulfilling the othereligibility criteria. However, it is made clear that the appellants shall beentitled to all the benefits from the date of their actual appointments.Present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstancesof the case, there shall be no order as to costs.D

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H