Supreme Court orders appointment of 50-year-old as postal assistant 28 years after he applied for the post

The Supreme Court recently ordered the Union Department of Posts to offer the job of a postal assistant to a man who had first applied for the post in 1995 [Union of India vs Uzair Imran and ors]..A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Datta also noted that the Central government was responsible for the matter dragging on for two decades..The Court found that the (now) 50-year-old job aspirant had been discriminated against and arbitrarily denied the post, days after he was selected by the authorities only on account of an "executive order.".The Court proceeded to exercise its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to order that he be appointed as a postal assistant within one month, initially on probation.."We cannot overlook that by passage of time, the third respondent (job aspirant) has crossed the maximum age for entry into public employment. He is 50 years old now and the age of superannuation is reported to be 60 years. In such a situation, we propose to dispose of this appeal by making appropriate directions in exercise of our power to do complete justice between the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution," the Court reasoned. .By way of background, one Ankur Gupta had been among those who were selected as postal assistant following a 1995 recruitment drive. However, he and some others were later deemed ineligible for the post after being asked to join for training based on a clarificatory letter issued by the Chief Post Master General. In the said letter, it was stated that candidates who pursued a vocational stream in High School would be ineligible for the post. The candidates who were denied a chance to continue in service on account of this letter, challenged this development before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).The CAT granted them relief and the High Court also ruled in their favour, prompting the Central government to file an appeal in 2022 before the Supreme Court. By this time, the candidates other than Gupta had lost interest in the matter leaving him as the sole candidate who was still actively involved in the litigation..The Supreme eventually granted relief to Gupta after noting that he (and other candidates) could not be faulted for expecting to be appointed a postal assistant after having been selected and named in the merit list. "Given the stages of the process that the candidate has successfully crossed, he may not have a vested right of appointment but a reasonable expectation of being appointed having regard to his position in the merit list could arise. The employer, if it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out from the range of appointment without rhyme or reason," the Court stated..The top court, thus, invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed that Gupta either be appointed as a postal assistant or that a supernumery post be created for him if there is no vacant post..The Court, however, clarified that he cannot claim salary arrears or seniority. However, he would be entitled to all retiral benefits as calculated from the date of the notification/advertisement for hiring in 1995. .Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati with advocates BNN Shivani, Ashok Panigrahi and Gurmeet Singh Makker appeared for the Central government.Advocates Kaushal Yadav, Ram Kishor Singh Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Abhishek Yadav, and Ajay Kumar appeared for the private respondents..[Read Judgment]