SUNIL MATHEW Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a recruitment to an executive post, the Selection Committee applies regulations not yet enforced, relaxes the age of a candidate, and appoints him. The candidate next in rank questions it. Under the regnant regulations no relaxation is possible. Pending the writ petition, the candidate earlier appointed also retires. But the next candidate, the writ petitioner, is still eligible. If the Court declares the earlier appointment illegal, can it direct the employer to appoint the challenger despite the long delay? The answer: Yes. Facts:

(2.) The Spices Board, the second respondent, a statutory body under the Spices Board Act 1986, published Ext.P1 notification inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up various posts, including the post of Director (Finance). When nineteen persons had applied to the post of Director, the Board shortlisted seven names holding that they had fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Later, the Selection Committee, constituted by the Board, conducted interviews and, through Ext.P4 rank list, declared that three persons were found eligible: Babu K.C., the fourth respondent, placed at rank No.1; Sunil Mathew K., the petitioner, at rank No.2; and another person at rank No.3. Eventually, it issued Ext.P5 offer letter to Babu, who soon thereafter joined the service.

(3.) Sunil, the petitioner, has a grievance: The notification prescribes the maximum age of 45 as on 1.12.2010, but Babu, the successful appointee, crossed that age by then. Though there was no provision for age relaxation in the notification, the Selection Committee illegally relaxed Babu's age by nine years and six months, and appointed him the Director (Finance). So the writ petition. Submissions: Petitioner's: