Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Customs Collectorate, Chandigarh, for the position of Inspectors under the sports quota, specifically for football. The appellant, Satish Rawat, participated in the selection process but failed the field test, while respondent No. 3 qualified in all tests. Despite this, the appellant was appointed, leading to a challenge by respondent No. 3 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the appellant's appointment and directed a review of the selection records. The appellant's subsequent review petitions were dismissed, prompting him to file a writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed. The Supreme Court examined the merits of the case, noting that the appellant had secured higher marks in the interview and written tests but failed in the field test. The Court acknowledged the discrepancies in the selection process and the Department's failure to provide complete records to the Tribunal. It concluded that the appellant's appointment was justifiable given the circumstances and directed the Department to create a post for him, ensuring he would not receive monetary benefits for the period he was not in service. The Court allowed the appeal and mandated the Department to appoint the appellant within three months.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Recruitment under Sports Quota - Validity of Appointment - Customs Act, 1962 - The appellant was appointed as Inspector despite failing the field test, while another candidate who qualified was not selected. The Tribunal quashed the appointment, but the Supreme Court held that the appellant's appointment was justifiable based on the circumstances and directed the Department to provide a post for him (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the appellant as Inspector under the sports quota was justified despite his failure in the field test.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the Department to provide a post to the appellant, to be created on a supernumerary basis if necessary, and to fix his pay-scale based on the last pay drawn at the time of his discharge from service. The appellant was not entitled to monetary benefits for the period he had not worked.
Law Points
- Recruitment under sports quota
- merit list consideration
- administrative discretion
- appointment validity
- Tribunal's authority
