DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SANDEEP KAUSHIK AND ORS.

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SANDEEP KAUSHIK AND ORS.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the recruitment process was bad because appointments were based solely on viva voce marks, but, finding that actual appointment after 14 years is not feasible due to changed circumstances, awarded respondent No.1 a lump sum compensation of Rs.7.5 lakhs with 6% interest from September 2013 in lieu of appointment, modifying the High Court's order to that extent.

Parties
Appellant: DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION; Original Writ Petitioner / Respondent No.1: SANDEEP KAUSHIK; Respondent (agency That Conducted Recruitment): Respondent No.2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Nos. 4920 4921 of 2022 / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed; High Court judgment modified to award compensation in lieu of appointment
Legal Topics
Appointment, Recruitment, Viva Voce Assessment, Compensation in Lieu of Appointment, Contractual Employment
Service Law Administrative Law Labour Law Appointment Recruitment Viva Voce Assessment Compensation in Lieu of Appointment Contractual Employment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Appellant

SANDEEP KAUSHIK

Original Writ Petitioner / Respondent No.1

Respondent No.2

Respondent (agency That Conducted Recruitment)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Nos. 4920 4921 of 2022 / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against High Court Judgment; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a recruitment process in which appointments were made solely on the basis of marks allotted in the viva voce without guidelines is valid
  2. 2 Whether respondent No.1 can be appointed after a lapse of about 14 years given changed circumstances including non-availability of posts and contractualisation of appointments
  3. 3 Whether a lump sum compensation in lieu of actual appointment is an appropriate remedy when reinstatement is not possible

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the recruitment process was bad because appointments were based solely on viva voce marks, but, finding that actual appointment after 14 years is not feasible due to changed circumstances, awarded respondent No.1 a lump sum compensation of Rs.7.5 lakhs with 6% interest from September 2013 in lieu of appointment, modifying the High Court's order to that extent.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed; High Court judgment modified to award compensation in lieu of appointment

Orders

  • Appellant shall pay Rs.7.5 lakhs to respondent No.1 by way of compensation in lieu of actual appointment
  • The amount shall carry 6% interest from September, 2013 onwards till actual payment is made