Administrative silence is not a shield – Rajasthan High Court rejects technical objections over state inaction

In a decision emphasizing the accountability of public authorities, the Rajasthan High Court, in Vibhorgolash v. Union of India & Ors.[1] , has set aside the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim. Hon’ble Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that when a timely application is filed and the State fails to pass any positive or negative order, a subsequent application cannot be dismissed as time-barred or contrary to policy.

The petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment in 2015 following his father’s demise. During a personal interaction, petitioner was informed that completing a graduate degree would qualify him for a clerical post, whereas petitioner would otherwise be restricted to a sub-staff position. Relying on this, the petitioner re-applied after obtaining degree. The state rejected this second application, contending it was time-barred and against the bank’s policy. The state further argued that the petitioner had previously been offered a sub-staff post which he allegedly refused. However, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted that there was no record or written order from the state to prove that any such offer had ever been made or rejected. The court scrutinized the state’s handling of the initial 2015 application and found a significant lapse in administrative duty. The bench noted that following the 2015 application and personal interaction, the authority passed no order, positive or negative. The first and only formal rejection occurred only after the second application.

The court referring to the Supreme Court case of Jane Kaushik v. Union of India[2],  highlighted that public authorities are duty-bound to discharge functions and to advance constitutional goals. The court held that failure to take action on a valid application constitutes a clear ‘omission’ on the state part.

The court found that since the first application was made well within the prescribed time frame and there was no evidence of a prior job offer being made, the rejection of the subsequent application was contrary to settled legal norms. The bench held that if a public authority was duty bound to discharge the public function in a particular manner and if they failed to take any action, then it is omission on their part.

This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative silence cannot be used as a weapon against a citizen’s claims. It establishes that public authorities cannot benefit from their own failure to pass timely orders. By shifting the burden onto the state to prove that an offer was actually made, the Rajasthan High Court has ensured that ‘settled norms’ of fairness prevail over technical objections of limitation when the initial delay is rooted in administrative inaction.

[1] (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5025/2021)

[2] (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1405 of 2023)