//
you're reading...
legal issues

service matter = There were vacancies in the cadre of Computer Operator/Lab Assistant/System Administrator and therefore, advertisement Notice No.1 of 2005 was published on 15.1.2005 by the appellant. Applications were invited from suitable candidates and qualifications required for the posts had been incorporated in the aforestated advertisement notice.=As per the select list prepared by the appellant alongwith other candidates, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were selected to be appointed. 5. A candidate named Renu Bala, respondent No. 1 herein, was not selected and therefore, she had filed Writ Petition No.93 of 2005 in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu challenging the selection procedure as well as the appointments to be made. – the learned single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the allegations made in the petition filed by Renu Bala, who is respondent No.1 in this appeal were genuine. Certain provisions had been relaxed in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul and the said relaxation made in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul had violated rights of all other candidates, who had applied for the posts. The learned single Judge, therefore, allowed the petition with costs and directed the appellant to appoint present respondent No.1 to the said post. 7. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.937 of 2005, the present appellant had filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court being LPASW No.146/08. The said appeal was heard by the High Court at length and ultimately the Division Bench had come to the conclusion that the view expressed by the learned single Judge was correct. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Recruitment Rules framed for the posts in question and the selection procedure carried out by the appellant was not proper because more weight was given to the oral interview and even the scheme of allotting marks under different heads was not proper. The Division Bench, therefore, gave a direction whereby the appellant has been directed to read its Recruitment Rules in an altogether different manner and declare the result afresh. In pursuance of the said direction given by the Division Bench in the impugned order, the court has virtually amended the Recruitment Rules and has given direction in such a way that the entire selection procedure suggested by the court would virtually change the result. The Division Bench, however, set aside the direction with regard to the costs, which had been quantified at Rs.10,000/- by the learned single Judge.= In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right when he came to the conclusion that undue favour was done to respondent No.8 (Shri Ashok Kumar Koul) and therefore, he had quashed and set aside his selection by allowing the petition.= Upon setting aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the Judgment delivered by the learned single Judge would operate and therefore, name of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul shall stand removed from the select list. Subject to other formalities being done by the appellant, the persons next to Shri Ashok Kumar Koul shall be selected for the posts in question in accordance with the existing Recruitment Rules. Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing for the original petitioner has submitted that Ms. Renu Bala will get selected as per her position in the select list. Be that as it may, if Ms. Renu gets her name included in the select list, she or any other person who gets into the select list shall be appointed in accordance with law after doing necessary formalities by the appellant. 16. As a result, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

 published in      http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40631     

NON-REPORTABLE

 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6141 OF 2013

 
J & K Institute of Management Public
Administration and Rural Development ….Appellant

 

Versus

Renu Bala & others. …..Respondents

 

J U D G M E N T

 
1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.

 

 

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 10.3.2010 delivered in LPASW
No.146/08 by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Jammu, the J&K Institute
of Management Public Administration & Rural Development has approached this
Court by way of this appeal.
2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are
as under:
There were vacancies in the cadre of Computer Operator/Lab
Assistant/System Administrator and therefore, advertisement Notice No.1 of
2005 was published on 15.1.2005 by the appellant. Applications were
invited from suitable candidates and qualifications required for the posts
had been incorporated in the aforestated advertisement notice.
3. In pursuance of the said advertisement, several candidates, including
respondent No.1, had submitted their applications and after completing the
selection process, the appellant had prepared a select list for selection
of suitable candidates for the posts in question.
4. As per the select list prepared by the appellant alongwith other
candidates, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were selected to be appointed.
5. A candidate named Renu Bala, respondent No. 1 herein, was not
selected and therefore, she had filed Writ Petition No.93 of 2005 in the
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu challenging the selection
procedure as well as the appointments to be made. In the said petition it
was alleged that the selection procedure was relaxed in favour of Shri
Ashok Kumar Koul, respondent No. 8 herein. Some allegations had also been
leveled against a candidate named Gharu Ram, respondent No. 7 herein but
subsequently allegations leveled against him had not been pressed.
Allegations were leveled only against Shri Ashok Kumar Koul to the effect
that undue favour was done to him in the matter of his selection as he was
an in-service candidate. It was alleged that he would not have been
included in the select list if genuineness of the certificates produced by
him had been fully examined. Moreover it was alleged that undue favour was
done to him by the selection committee.
6. After hearing the concerned parties and looking to the facts of the
case, the learned single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion
that the allegations made in the petition filed by Renu Bala, who is
respondent No.1 in this appeal were genuine. Certain provisions had been
relaxed in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul and the said relaxation made in
favour of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul had violated rights of all other
candidates, who had applied for the posts. The learned single Judge,
therefore, allowed the petition with costs and directed the appellant to
appoint present respondent No.1 to the said post.
7. Being aggrieved by the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.937 of
2005, the present appellant had filed an appeal before the Division Bench
of the High Court being LPASW No.146/08. The said appeal was heard by the
High Court at length and ultimately the Division Bench had come to the
conclusion that the view expressed by the learned single Judge was correct.
The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the Recruitment Rules
framed for the posts in question and the selection procedure carried out by
the appellant was not proper because more weight was given to the oral
interview and even the scheme of allotting marks under different heads was
not proper. The Division Bench, therefore, gave a direction whereby the
appellant has been directed to read its Recruitment Rules in an altogether
different manner and declare the result afresh. In pursuance of the said
direction given by the Division Bench in the impugned order, the court has
virtually amended the Recruitment Rules and has given direction in such a
way that the entire selection procedure suggested by the court would
virtually change the result. The Division Bench, however, set aside the
direction with regard to the costs, which had been quantified at Rs.10,000/-
by the learned single Judge.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has mainly submitted
that it was not open to the Division Bench of the High Court to modify the
Recruitment Rules and direct the appellant to declare the result in
pursuance of the modifications suggested by it. According to him, the High
Court has virtually re-written the Recruitment Rules. He, therefore, has
submitted that the impugned judgment is improper for the reason that the
High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by re-writing the Recruitment
Rules.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents has submitted that the directions given by the High Court are
just and proper.
10. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
candidates, who are likely to be selected in pursuance of the fresh
direction given by the High Court, that the directions given by the High
Court are just and therefore, they need not be interfered with.
11. We have heard the learned counsel at length and have also gone
through the facts pertaining to the case as reflected from the pleadings.
12. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is very clear that the High
Court has given several directions whereby the appellant has been directed
to change its selection procedure and provisions of the Recruitment Rules.
Directions have also been given to increase or decrease marks given by the
selection committee, which were in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.
Quantum of marks to be awarded under different heads are ordered to be
modified by the High Court and the High Court has directed to re-consider
the result in the light of the directions given by it.
13. In our opinion, it was not the function of the High Court to give any
direction so as to virtually amend the Recruitment Rules. In our opinion,
the learned single Judge was right when he came to the conclusion that
undue favour was done to respondent No.8 (Shri Ashok Kumar Koul) and
therefore, he had quashed and set aside his selection by allowing the
petition.
14. In our opinion, while deciding the appeal, the Division Bench of the
High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the appellant to
amend the Recruitment Rules and therefore, we quash and set aside the
impugned judgment dated 10th March, 2010. We also clarify that the
directions given by the learned single Judge about imposition of costs and
giving appointment to Ms. Renu Bala are also quashed.
15. Upon setting aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the
Judgment delivered by the learned single Judge would operate and therefore,
name of Shri Ashok Kumar Koul shall stand removed from the select list.
Subject to other formalities being done by the appellant, the persons next
to Shri Ashok Kumar Koul shall be selected for the posts in question in
accordance with the existing Recruitment Rules. Mr. Sinha, learned senior
counsel, appearing for the original petitioner has submitted that Ms. Renu
Bala will get selected as per her position in the select list. Be that as
it may, if Ms. Renu gets her name included in the select list, she or any
other person who gets into the select list shall be appointed in accordance
with law after doing necessary formalities by the appellant.
16. As a result, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

 
…………………………………………..J.

ANIL R. DAVE)

 
….…………………………………
……….J.

(DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi
August 7, 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,194 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: