MANOJ KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

MANOJ KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Institute acted arbitrarily in denying 6 marks to the appellant by reading a 'relevant subject' requirement into the general category 'PG Degree'; Clauses 14 and 19 do not empower the Institute to add new eligibility conditions. The High Court's refusal to examine the arbitrariness was unsustainable. Because the specific vacancy no longer exists due to closure of the school, the appropriate restitutory measure was monetary compensation, and the Institute was directed to pay Rs.100,000 plus costs.

Parties
Appellant: Manoj Kumar; Respondent: Union of India; Respondent: Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments of the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) set aside.
Legal Topics
Recruitment, Allocation of Marks for Additional Qualifications, Arbitrariness in Executive Action, Judicial Restraint in Academic Matters, Restitution, Monetary Compensation
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Education Law Recruitment Allocation of Marks for Additional Qualifications Arbitrariness in Executive Action Judicial Restraint in Academic Matters +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manoj Kumar

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent

Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for the Physically Handicapped

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of 6 marks for appellant's PG Degree was illegal and arbitrary
  2. 2 Whether the Institute could read a 'relevant subject' restriction into the category 'PG Degree' for additional qualification marks
  3. 3 Whether Clauses 14 and 19 of the vacancy circular empowered the Institute to supply new selection criteria or exercise unbridled discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Institute acted arbitrarily in denying 6 marks to the appellant by reading a 'relevant subject' requirement into the general category 'PG Degree'; Clauses 14 and 19 do not empower the Institute to add new eligibility conditions. The High Court's refusal to examine the arbitrariness was unsustainable. Because the specific vacancy no longer exists due to closure of the school, the appropriate restitutory measure was monetary compensation, and the Institute was directed to pay Rs.100,000 plus costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments of the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) set aside.

Orders

  • Action of the respondents set aside as illegal and arbitrary.
  • Institute (respondent no.2) directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the appellant within six weeks from date of order.