A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case, Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. ([2024] 2 S.C.R. 409), deliberates on arbitrariness in executive actions during recruitment, specifically relating to allocation of marks for additional qualifications. The appellant challenged the denial of marks for his Post Graduate (PG) Degree, asserting it was arbitrary and unjustified. Despite the Single Judge and Division Bench dismissing the writ petition on grounds of judicial restraint in academic matters, the Supreme Court overruled the decisions, emphasizing constitutional duties to address arbitrary actions. The Court recognized the unlawful denial but opted for monetary compensation due to the closure of the concerned school. This judgment reinforces the principle of judicial review, emphasizing restitution and alternative remedies.

Keywords: Service Law, Recruitment, Additional Qualifications, Arbitrariness, Judicial Review, Restitution, Compensation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Manoj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2679 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date: 20 February 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Sandeep Mehta
vi) Author: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 409 : 2024 INSC 126
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Administrative Law, Constitutional Principles of Judicial Review
ix) Judgments Overruled: High Court of Delhi judgments dated 24.01.2018 and 16.10.2018
x) Related Law Subjects: Service Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from the denial of marks for a PG Degree during a recruitment process for a primary school teacher post in 2016. The dispute centered on the interpretation of qualifications outlined in a vacancy notification. The appellant contested that his PG Degree, though unrelated to the specific field, qualified under general categories meriting 6 marks. After exhausting remedies in the High Court, which upheld the administrative decision, the appellant sought redress in the Supreme Court. The Court examined the broader implications of arbitrariness in administrative decisions within recruitment frameworks.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Vacancy Advertisement: Issued by Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute in March 2016, inviting applications for primary school teachers.
2. Selection Criteria: Candidates required senior secondary qualifications and teacher training certification. The process prescribed marks for additional qualifications such as PG Degrees.
3. Modification: The institute later replaced interviews with mark allocation for additional qualifications.
4. Appellant’s Grievance: Despite possessing a valid PG Degree, the appellant was denied 6 marks on the pretext of irrelevance to the subject matter, resulting in his non-selection.
5. High Court Decisions: Both the Single Judge and Division Bench upheld the institute’s discretionary power, citing judicial restraint in academic matters.
6. Supreme Court Intervention: The appellant contended that the denial was arbitrary, violating principles of fairness and equal opportunity.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Was the denial of marks for the appellant’s PG Degree arbitrary and in contravention of recruitment norms?
2. Do administrative bodies possess unbridled discretion in recruitment processes?
3. What constitutes a constitutional court’s duty in addressing arbitrariness?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that his PG Degree qualified under the “general category” of additional qualifications. Denying 6 marks constituted arbitrary action, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. The recruitment guidelines categorized additional qualifications distinctly. Requiring subject relevance for PG Degrees when not explicitly stated rewrote the eligibility norms.
3. Judicial review necessitates the examination of arbitrary executive actions, especially when they infringe fundamental rights.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondents defended their discretion under the recruitment policy’s Clause 14, allowing flexibility in selection criteria and shortlisting.
2. They asserted that PG Degrees must be in relevant subjects, aligning with professional requisites for a primary teaching position.
3. Citing precedents, the respondents emphasized minimum judicial interference in academic matters.

H) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. The Court ruled that unilateral amendments to eligibility norms mid-process were arbitrary and illegal.
2. Recruitment norms, when categorically defined, cannot be altered to suit discretionary preferences.
3. Judicial review is warranted where administrative actions infringe constitutional rights, even in academic matters.

b) Obiter Dicta

1. The Court highlighted the duty to restitute victims of administrative arbitrariness through alternate compensatory remedies.
2. Emphasis was placed on constitutional courts’ role in transcending time constraints to ensure justice.

c) Guidelines Issued

1. Recruitment processes must adhere to published criteria, avoiding mid-process changes.
2. Administrative bodies must ensure transparency and fairness to prevent arbitrariness.
3. Courts should explore restitutory measures, including compensation, when direct remedies are unattainable.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the Court’s pivotal role in rectifying arbitrary administrative actions. It balances judicial restraint with proactive measures to uphold constitutional mandates. By providing compensation, the Court demonstrates flexibility in addressing remedial justice.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde ([2013] 9 SCR 521; (2013) 10 SCC 519)
2. Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu ([1980] 1 SCR 1026; (1980) 3 SCC 97)
3. All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan ([2009] 3 SCR 859; (2009) 11 SCC 726)

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 32
2. Administrative Law principles on judicial review