Skip to main content

Employment Law | Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Surender Singh, C.A. No. 5588 of 2010 01-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | R. Banumathi & A.S. Bopanna, JJ. C.A. No. 5588 of 2010 01-08-2019
Employment Law – Recruiting agency cannot be compelled to fill up all available posts even if the persons of the desired merit are not available.


It is not a rule of universal application that whenever vacancies exist persons who are in the merit list per force have to be appointed. If the employer fixes the cut­off position the same is not to be tinkered with unless it is totally irrational or tainted with malafides. The employer in its wisdom may consider the particular range of selection to be appropriate. The decision of the employer to appoint a particular number of candidates cannot be interfered with unless it is irrational or malafide.

The Division Bench has exceeded the jurisdiction while exercising the power of judicial review in the matter of selection process by evolving its own criteria and substituting the same with the criteria adopted by recruiting agency. [Para 19]
Employment Law – the employer cannot be forced to lower the bar and recruit candidates who do not possesses the knowledge to the desired extent merely because certain posts had remained vacant.


When the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) were concerned with the quality of teachers to be recruited and had fixed a merit bar to indicate that the persons obtaining the percentage of marks above such bar only would be selected, the employer cannot be forced to lower the bar and recruit teachers who do not possesses the knowledge to the desired extent merely because certain posts had remained vacant which in any event would be carried over to the next recruitment. Any undue sympathy shown to the private respondents herein so as to direct their selection despite not possessing the desired merit would amount to interference with the right of the employer to have suitable candidates and would also cause injustice to the other candidates who had participated in the process and had secured a better percentage of marks than the private respondents herein but lower than the cut­off percentage and had accepted the legal position with regard to the employer’s right in selection process. [Paras 20 and 23]
Petitioner’s Advocate : Praveen Swarup
Respondent’s Advocate : Sumit Kumar
Labels:
Location: Tilak Marg, Supreme Court, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.
Post a Comment
Read more

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 
2 comments
Read more

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...
Post a Comment
Read more