Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for Physically Handicapped called for appointment of Primary School Teachers and reserved a right to evaluate, review its process of selection at any stage. This one is a classic case of arbitrary action.

While primary duty of Constitutional Courts remains control of power, including setting aside of illegal or arbitrary actions, such measures may not singularly address repercussions of abuse of power. It is equally incumbent upon Courts, as a secondary measure, to address injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions.

We appreciate Manoj’s spirit who has steadfastly contested his case, like Vikram against Betaal, from 2017. Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute for Physically Handicapped to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-.

– Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Kumar v. Union of India, [Civil Appeal No. 2679 of 2024].

It cannot be gainsaid, factors of ‘when’, ‘which’, ‘what’, ‘who’ and ‘how’, associated with a recruitment/selection process, are a recruiting authority’s/selector’s prerogative. However, process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing same, if any, as well as principles of absolute fairness and complete non-arbitrariness without slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism. Normally, it is not for Courts to interfere unless a process smacks of mala fides.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, [Civil Appeal No. 2350 of 2025] decided on 07.03.2025.