LI Network
Published on: December 19, 2023 at 12:00 IST
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal challenging a High Court order allowing the appointment to a government post. The Court emphasized the significance of clarification letters issued subsequently when determining the cut-off date for eligibility criteria.
The bench, comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, delved into the interpretation of the term “Contemplate” concerning eligibility rules that stipulate candidates should not face any disciplinary proceedings contemplated against them.
The case involved Respondent No.1, appointed as a Naib Tehsildar in 2008, whose eligibility for a post in the Haryana Civil Service was questioned under amended rules in 2017.
The eligibility criteria, outlined in Rule 9(1)(a), included the requirement that the candidate should not be facing disciplinary proceedings with action contemplated against them.
A subsequent communication from the Chief Secretary’s Office in May 2019 clarified the conditions of eligibility, specifying November 1, 2018, as the cut-off date.
The respondent, facing potential disciplinary action for being absent during the Haryana Teacher’s Eligibility Test in 2018, challenged his declared ineligibility through legal avenues.
The key contention revolved around determining the correct cut-off date for eligibility. The appellants argued for September 30, 2018, while the respondent insisted on November 1, 2018.
The Court analyzed whether disciplinary action was contemplated against the respondent on the chosen cut-off date.
The Court clarified that the cut-off date should be the one when the committee recommends names to the Commission under Rule 9(2), namely, August 31, 2019.
Regarding the term “Contemplate,” the Court referred to dictionaries and legal precedents, stating that it means to have a probable intention and falls short of complete certainty.
The Court cited the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts’ interpretations, emphasizing that contemplation is a mental process preceding a decision.
Applying these principles to the case, the Court determined that disciplinary action was contemplated against the respondent, supported by the Deputy Commissioner’s letter recommending a formal inquiry.
In conclusion, the Court held that the respondent was ineligible as of the date of consideration before the commission, and the appeal was allowed.
Case Details: State of Haryana and Ors v. Dinesh Singh and Anr
