/2022 INSC 1053/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  9040 OF 2022
(@ SLP(C) NO. 14252 OF 2022)
Kumari Laxmi Saroj & Ors.       ...Appellant(S)
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.        ...Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 13.07.2022, passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ
A.   No.   3993/2022,   by   which,   the   High   Court   has
dismissed the said writ petition and refused to issue a writ
directing  the respondent(s) to appoint them on the post of
Health   Worker   (Female),   the   original   writ   petitioners   have
preferred the present appeal.  
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under: ­
1

2.1 That   applications   were   invited   vide   advertisement   dated
15.12.2021 for  appointment  on  the post of Health Worker
(Female).  The  last  date  for  submitting  the  application  was
05.01.2022.   As   per   clause   6   of   the   advertisement,   it   was
inevitable   for   the   candidate   to   possess   the   essential
qualifications   (educational   and   other)   till   the   last   date   of
the   application   which   included   a   condition   that   the
candidate   must   have   successfully   completed   one   year   six
months/two   years   Auxiliary   Nurses   and   Midwives   (ANM)
training   course   (including   six   months   training   related   to
obstetrics)   as   per   the   norms   of   the   Nursing   Council   of
India  and that  the candidate  was duly  registered  with  the
Uttar Pradesh Nurses and Midwife Council, Lucknow (U.P.
Council).     All   the   appellants     filled   up   their   applications
forms   through   online   mode   and   appeared   in   the   said
examination.   The   eligibility   of   the   candidate   was   required
to be considered only during verification of the documents.
All   the   appellants   were   registered   with   the   M.P.   Council.
All   the   appellants   except   one   submitted   the   applications
for   the   U.P.   Council   registration.   The   M.P.   Council
furnished the NOC. However, the U.P. Council took time to
2

issue   the   registration   and   therefore,   the   respective
appellants   could   not   produce   the   U.P.   registration   during
verification   of   documents.   The   candidatures   of   the
appellants were not considered further for appointment on
the   ground   that   at   the   time   of   verification   of   the
documents   they   were   not   duly   registered   with   the   Uttar
Pradesh   Nurses   and   Midwife   Council,   Lucknow,   and
therefore,  they   were   ineligible   as   they   did   not   possess   the
essential   qualifications,   as   per   the   advertisement.   The
appellants therefore, filed the writ petition before the High
Court.   By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   High
Court has dismissed the said writ petition by accepting the
stand   taken   on   behalf   of   the   State   that   at   the   time   of
verification   of   documents   and/or   even   at   the   time   of
submitting the applications forms, they were not registered
with U.P. Council and therefore, they are ineligible.       
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dismissing
the   writ   petition,   the   original   writ   petitioners   have
preferred the present appeal by way of special leave. 
3

3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. 
4. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   date   of
advertisement   inviting   applications   was   15.12.2021.   The
last  date  of  submitting   the  application   was  05.01.2022.  It
is   true   that   as   per   the   advertisement,   a   candidate   should
have   been   registered   with   the   U.P.   Council.   All   the
appellants – writ petitioners who were having M.P. Council
registration had applied for U.P. Council registration before
the   date   of   the   advertisement   published   on   15.12.2021,
except   for   one   candidate   (namely   Kumari   Pooja   Rani).   It
took some time for the M.P. Council to issue the NOC and
thereafter, it took further time for the U.P. Council to issue
the   registration.   The   statement   showing   the   date   of
application   for   U.P.   Council   registration,   issuance   of   the
NOC   by   M.P.   Council,   date   of   application   to   the   U.P.
Subordinate   Services   Selection   Commission   and   date   of
issuance of the U.P. Council registration in respect of each
appellant is as under: 
Petitioner/
Appellant Date   of   MP
Council Application
for   UP MP
Council Date   of
Application Date   of   UP
Council
4

No.  Registratio
n  Council
Registratio
n  NOC
Furnished  to UPSSSC Registratio
n  
1.   Kumari
Laxmi Saroj 17.09.2021 18.09.2021 02.12.202
1 21.12.202
1 14.02.2022
2.   Kumari
Pooja Rani 23.11.2021 23.12.2021 28.12.202
1 26.12.202
1 03.06.2022
3.   Hema
Lata Mishra 12.09.2017 22.11.2021 29.11.202
1 31.12.202
1 24.03.2022
4.   Durga
Sharma  12.09.2017 22.11.2021 29.11.202
1 31.12.202
1 16.03.2022
4.1 Thus,   because   of   the   late   issuance   of   the   registration   by
the   U.P.   Council,   the   appellants   could   not   produce   the
U.P.   Council   registration   either   on   the   last   date   of   the
application and/or at the time of verification of documents
and therefore, they were held ineligible. 
4.2 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that as such, there was
no fault on the part of the appellants in not producing the
U.P.   Council   registration   either   at   the   time   of   submitting
the applications forms or even at the time of verification of
the documents. As such, all the appellants except one had
applied   for   U.P.   Council   registration   before   the   date   of
advertisement i.e., 15.12.2021. Therefore, for no fault(s) of
theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer.
The   issue   involved   is   directly   covered   by   the   decision   of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Narender   Singh   Vs.   State   of
Haryana   and   Ors.;   (2022)   3   SCC   286 .     In   the   said
5

decision, it is observed and held by this Court that once it
was found that there was no lapse/delay on the part of the
applicant   and/or   there   was   no   fault   of   the
appellant/applicant   in   not   producing   the   NOC   at   the
relevant time, he  cannot  be  punished for  the  same.  When
the   aforesaid   decision   was   pressed   into   service   before   the
High Court on behalf of the appellants, the High Court has
not   followed   the   same   by   observing   that   the   directions
issued   by   this   Court   in   the  case   Narender   Singh   (supra),
were   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   142   of   the
Constitution of India. The aforesaid is a misreading and/or
misinterpreting   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court.   This   Court
has   specifically   laid   down   the   law   that   if   it   is   found   that
there   is   no   lapse/delay   on   the   part   of   the   applicant,   he
cannot   be   punished   for   no   fault   attributable   to   him.
However, as in that case, another candidate/employee was
already   appointed,   this   Court   had   protected   his   service
also   while   exercising   the   powers   under   Article   142   of   the
Constitution   of   India.   Therefore,   exercise   of   the   powers
under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of   India   was   for
protecting   the   service   of   another   employee   –   respondent
6

No. 4 in that case. The High Court has as such, mis­read
the judgment of this Court.  
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and
applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Narender   Singh   (supra),   the   impugned   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   unsustainable   and   the
same   deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside   and   is
accordingly quashed and set aside.   
6. The   respondent(s)   are   directed   to   appoint   the   appellants
herein   to   the   post   of   Health   Worker   (Female)   within   a
period of six weeks from today, if otherwise, they are found
meritorious   and   fulfilling   the   other   eligibility   criteria.
However,   it   is   made   clear   that   the   appellants   shall   be
entitled   to   all   the   benefits   from   the   date   of   their   actual
appointments.   Present   appeal   is   accordingly   allowed.   In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs. 
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
7

…………………………………J.
 (HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI, 
DECEMBER 15, 2022.
8