Tripura High Court Holds Income-Based Selection Criteria in Public Employment Unconstitutional

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

On 5th August 2020, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Tripura High Court Mr. Akhil Kureshi dealt with the case of Smt. Subarana Chakraborty vs State of Tripura & Ors assessing the validity of a selection process.

Facts of the Case 

The government issued an advertisement inviting applications for five posts of Senior Instructor, out of which one was reserved for Scheduled Caste, 2 for Scheduled Tribe and 2 were available for unreserved candidates. The petitioner failed to apply for the post on time and got an extension from the court through a writ petition following which he applied for the post.

After such an application, the government notified two guidelines specifying the selection criteria and added a category of “need” which carried a weightage of 25 marks, however, this category was absent from the guidelines that were in force while the applications were open. The Petitioners were awarded 0 marks in this category and failed to be selected.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the government can modify the selection process after the acceptance of applications?
  2. Whether the inclusion of the “need” category is violative of Art 14?

Arguments Advanced

Petitioners argued that the selection process commences from the date of issue of advertisement for the posts and any change in the method of evaluation after the release of advertisement could not be made. Further, the insertion of the “need” category creates a class within similarly situated citizens and thus is hit by Art 14.

Respondents argued that the Petitioner who willingly participated in the selection process, cannot challenge its validity. The process involved is not arbitrary rather guided by the selection policy of which the Petitioners were aware.

Court’s Observations and Decision

In the context of whether the Petitioner has gone through the selection process willingly can challenge the same, the Court observed that the Government notified several new guidelines in quick succession and without sufficient publication or notice. The latest guidelines which were used to scrutinize the applications were issued when the selection process was underway and there is a legitimate expectation on the part of Petitioners that such guidelines will not be made applicable.

Court commenting on the Petitioner’s request of annulling the whole selection process stated that the Petitioners themselves do root for a set of guidelines that were published after the advertisement, and they also missed the deadline initially set and applied after a court granted an extension. In such a case, the thumb rule of the revised selection policy does not apply to the selection process that has already begun cannot be applied.

Concerning whether the “need” category is arbitrary, the Court examined what exactly was evaluated under this category. The need was defined as a) total income of the family does not exceed 2.5 lakh per year and b) There is no member in the family with government employment. 

This category as awarded 25 marks. If neither of these conditions is satisfied then-candidate would get a zero in this category. This prescription was held to be unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary.

Since a candidate who does not fulfill both the conditions would be knocked out of the process due to the large proportion of marks, the criteria hold even if the candidate may have better qualifications and competence. Selection for public employment cannot be made on such a basis.

Thus, such a category creates a subcategory within a homogenous class of eligible candidates and thus would be class legislation which is prohibited under Art 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Further, the term family has not been defined, thus the income limit seems even more unreasonable as there can be a difference in the number of earning members in each family. Public employment is to be granted based on suitability and the “need” category defies logic and is irrational.

The court, therefore, asked the respondents to eliminate the marks under the “need” category from the selection process of all unreserved category candidates including the Petitioners, and reassess the marks obtained by all candidates to arrive at the final result. If on such revaluation, the Petitioners are found to be more meritorious, they shall be selected to the post.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -