Sep 17, 2021 11:17 UTC
Sep 17, 2021 at 11:17 UTC
SC: Extension of time cannot be claimed as matter of right
The Supreme Court upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order of not granting an extension of time for joining of the post of Presiding Officer in Labour court. The Supreme Court held that extension of time of joining cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Nilesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh
The Bench of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose held that “Appointment letter was categorical to the effect that the petitioner had to join within 30 days. Admittedly, life of select list expired on January 5 2011 & petitioner did join even after expiry of period of select list. Petitioner not joining within a period of 30 days disentitles him to be appointed for the post. Extension of time of joining cannot be claimed as a matter of right.”
In this case, Nilesh Kumar Pandey (Petitioner) had applied for the post of Presiding Officer Labour Court. Petitioner was shortlisted upon publication of the select list and his name was recommended by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission on 9 July 2009. However on account of ongoing litigation, the petitioner’s appointment could not be made immediately and upon State Government’s request, the validity of the select list was extended till 5 January 2011.
While during the pendency of the select list, an appointment order was issued in the petitioner’s favour on 28 August 2010, with a stipulation of time period of 30 days to join the post from the day of issuance of the appointment order, else failing to which appointment comes to an end. On account of the pendency of writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates who were not selected, the petitioner didn’t join the post presumably.
On 28 April 2014, the petitioner made an application to the State of Chhattisgarh for an extension of his period of joining the post, however the same was rejected on 12 June 2014, on the ground that the validity of the original select list had come to an end and that the joining period could not be extended in absence of any specific provision.
Aggrieved to which the petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking quashing of the 2014 order on the ground that his appointment was subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his writ on the ground that he was an uninterested person and failed to join on the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court despite the expiry of the peremptory period.
He then approached the Division Bench of the High Court challenging the order of Single Judge. On 24 June 2019, the division bench upheld the single judge’s order.
Therefore he approached the Supreme Court which also upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.