The Supreme Court, after a span of twenty-eight years, has ruled in favor of appointing a man who had sought a job at the postal department. This decision comes as a result of the Court's acknowledgment of an error that wrongly disqualified him for the position

Ankur Gupta had applied for the post of postal assistant in 1995. After being selected for pre-induction training, he was later excluded from the merit list on the ground that he completed intermediate education from the "vocational stream".

Gupta, along with fellow unsuccessful candidates, took their case to the Central Administrative Tribunal in 1999, where the tribunal issued a favorable ruling. However, the postal department contested the tribunal's decision and sought relief from the Allahabad High Court in 2000.  It wasn't until 2017 that the high court finally dismissed the department's petition and upheld the CAT's ruling. Subsequently, a review petition was filed in the high court, but it too was rejected in 2021. In light of these developments, the postal department escalated the matter to the Supreme Court for further consideration.

The division bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Datta said a candidate cannot claim a vested right to appointment, once he is included in the merit list, he has a limited right of being accorded a fair treatment. "However, if the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment, he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment," the bench said.

The Supreme Court affirmed that if the employer is considered a State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution, it lacks the authority to act in a capricious manner and dismiss a candidate without justifiable cause.

"The employer-State being bound by Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason," it said.

The bench noted that had the department declared Gupta as ineligible based on the initial assessment of his educational qualifications, the circumstances would have been significantly different.

"However, it was not at the threshold that the third respondent was considered ineligible. "As the factual narrative would reveal, the appellant had considered the third respondent eligible, allowed him to take part in the various tests in connection with the selection process, interviewed him, placed his name quite high in the merit list, and thereafter sent him for 15 days' pre-induction training starting from 15th March, 1996," it said.

Exercising its exceptional authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court ordered that Gupta should be extended an appointment, initially on a probationary basis, for the position of Postal Assistant (for which he had been selected) within one month. In the event that no such vacancy exists, the court directed that an additional, supernumerary post should be established to accommodate him.

It said Gupta has been discriminated against and arbitrarily deprived of fruit of selection.

"Subject to satisfactory completion of the period of probation, the third respondent shall be confirmed in service; Should service rendered during probation be considered not satisfactory, the appellant will be entitled to proceed in accordance with law.