Public employment is scarce, grace, charity, compassion got no place in it: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said, grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said, ''Public employment is scarce. The youth of the country eagerly await such employment opportunities, as and when the same are thrown open, with fervent hopes for a brighter future.''

In such cases, the stakes are high, when it comes to public employment and opportunities like these can be life changing for young people. When chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands, the court said.

The court set aside the Delhi High Court's order which directed the Delhi police commissioner to conduct a physical endurance and measurement test, missed by a constable aspirant, Uttam Kumar as he suffered from cold, cough, fever, headache, body pain, and dizziness.

Kumar contended that since he belonged to the backward community, the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court were right in exercising discretion in his favour and against the appellants.

"Merely because one belongs to the backward community cannot be the decisive factor for tilting the scales. The boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out beyond which the adjudicatory fora ought not to trench,'' the bench said.

The court found that the appeal presented a classic example of how irresponsible an individual can be.

The respondent was scheduled to appear for the test on January 14, 2024. He sought to submit three representations on January 13, 14 and 25, 2024. He was advised to take the PE&MT on the reserve day or 15 days’ time may be given to him to recover.

He was able to move around on January 13, 2024 but unable to move on January 14, 2024.

Such being the position, at least, an effort should have been made by the respondent to remain physically present on the scheduled date of the PE&MT. He, however, abstained and was, in our opinion, rightly marked “absent”, the bench said.

The court held non-communication of any decision on any of the representations, on facts and in the circumstances, did not clothe the Tribunal to make the order it did while disposing of the original application, throwing the process asunder.

Not showing up and expecting a second chance, clearly demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative on the part of the respondent, the bench said.

Given that the respondent aspired to join the police force as a Constable, his conduct leaves a lot to be desired, the bench added.