JASVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-62
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JAMMU & KASHMIR)
Decided on
December 20,2002
JASVINDER SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ASHOK KUMAR YADAV STATE OF HARYANA D R CHAUDHARY MEMBER VS. STATE OF HARYANA:SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA:ASHOK KUMAR YADAV [REFERRED]MANJEET SINGH UDC K PRAKASAM VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION :T SUBRAHMANYAM [REFERRED]
ANZAR AHMAD ABID ASGHAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
KASAM ABDULLA HAFIZ VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SUKESH C K VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERN [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-221] [REFERRED TO]KIRAN DUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
KISAN SUKHDEO LOKHANDE VS. COLLECTOR AKOLA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
INDER PARKASH GUPTA VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-143] [RELIED ON]
A MARIMUTHU VS. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-11-209] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL MALIK VS. HARYANA GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH HAZRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-157] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2011-5-412] [REFERRED]
VIJAYALAKSHMI SHANMUGAM VS. CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SON OF SURJEET SINGH VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SATYAVAMA MOHAPATRA AND ANR. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 4 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
JAGBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-62] [REFERRED TO]
MUMTAJ ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
BICHENAPALLY SUMAHITHA VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE (C1) DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHKUMAR JAIN VS. GUJARAT STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(GJH)-2005-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
ARSHAD HUSSAIN VS. CHAIRMAN, J&K BANK [LAWS(J&K)-2008-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH GUPTA VS. UTI INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
C CHANNE GOWDA VS. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2004-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
VINEET KUMAR PUROHIT VS. J N V UNIVERSITY JODHPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
TAJVIR SINGH SODHI VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(SC)-2023-3-118] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AVTAR PATWARI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2005-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY PRAKASH DWIVEDI & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-160] [REFERRED]
RAJESH VERMA VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
T.B. VENUGOPAL VS. THE TUMKUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2021-8-113] [REFERRED TO]
JAGMAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2006-8-313] [REFERRED]
ANJU RANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-8-477] [REFERRED]
VIJAYALAKSHMI SHANMUGAM; THANGAM THENNARASU VS. S THANGARAJ, JAYALALITHA JAYARAM; STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-12-349] [REFERRED]
JAGDAMBA POLYMERS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI MISHRA VS. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
KANTA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2006-7-641] [REFERRED]
CHAIRMAN-CUM-M.D., COAL INDIA LTD. AND ORS. VS. ANANTA SAHA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-167] [REFERRED TO]
SREEKANTH SAGAR VS. THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-3-87] [REFERRED TO]
V ARUMUGAM VS. R KALAIARASAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-12] [FOLLOWED ON]
BANSI LAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-284] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY VS. SUJITH [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
P MOHANAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SYAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2003-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
BAIDYA NATH SAHA VS. VISVA BHARATI SANTINIKETAN, BIRBHUM & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2008-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAKHI THAREJA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
VIPIN BIHARI SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-62] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND KUMAR GUPTA VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-244] [REFERRED]
PRAFULLA KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UP AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-362] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI RASTOGI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-155] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER BALORIA VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2006-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU BAHUGUNA VS. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(UTN)-2020-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The above appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 29th May, 1998 in a batch of appeals - LPA (SW) 85 of 1997 etc. and those in which subsequently the same was followed of a Division bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu whereunder, while allowing the appeals, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and ordered the dismissal of the writ petitions.
(2.)The subject matter in issue pertains to a challenge to the selections made for the appointment of Sub-Inspectors of Police - Executive/ armed Police in the State. Applications were invited by Public notices dated 20th August, 1991, fixing the last date for receipt from all eligible persons, indicating the required, qualifications, therefor. Candidates, it was proclaimed will have to undergo (a) physical measurement test; (b) outdoor test; (c) written test and (d) viva voce test. After conducting all such tests the list of candidates approved for appointment was said to have been published on 26.11.1992, consisting of about 110 names and the same was subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and fulfilment of other formalities. Subsequently, it appears that out of 18 selected candidates summoned for verification twelve candidates presented themselves and out of them nine were found to be in shortage of chest measurements and one found to be of under height and therefore excluded from the list of candidates to be appointed.
(3.)The appellants who filed writ petitions participated in the selections but could not be selected for one or the other reason and aggrieved they filed writ petitions in the High court challenging the selections. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petitions found and in the course of the order specifically recorded that the controversy in the cases stood narrowed down to two grounds viz. (i) the marks allocated for viva-voce at 25 in comparison to the marks earmarked for written test at 100. worked out to 20% and the same being in excess of 12 1/2% stood vitiated on account of the law declared by this Court in the decision reported in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others-, AIR 1987 sc 454 = 1985 (4) SCC 417 and therefore the selections stood vitiated and are liable to be set aside the (ii) that the marks in viva-voce was not properly awarded and that not only there was a farce of an interview of every candidate within few minutes but questions put were also irrelevant and not related to the selection for the posts in question. Over ruling the objections of the respondent State and authorities of the Department, the learned Single judge held (a) that the marks allocated at 25 for the viva-voce was against the law declared by this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) and therefore stood vitiated and (b) on going through the records it was found that the marks in the interview seem to have been awarded with a conscious effort to bring up candidates who figured with low marks in the written test by awarding more marks in the viva-voce and low marks awarded to those who secured higher percentage in written test. Therefore the learned Single Judge held that there is no option but to believe that the marks were given in the viva-voce for extraneous consideration. Thereupon the learned Single Judge expressed the view that he was not inclined to quash the appointment of selected candidates which may upset the whole department and operate harshly upon the selected candidates, and instead directed that all those writ petitioners falling in general category who had obtained 56 marks or above in the written examination shall be entitled for appointment as sub-Inspectors of Police, since the last candidate already selected and appointed in general category had obtained 56 marks in the Written examination.
(2.)The subject matter in issue pertains to a challenge to the selections made for the appointment of Sub-Inspectors of Police - Executive/ armed Police in the State. Applications were invited by Public notices dated 20th August, 1991, fixing the last date for receipt from all eligible persons, indicating the required, qualifications, therefor. Candidates, it was proclaimed will have to undergo (a) physical measurement test; (b) outdoor test; (c) written test and (d) viva voce test. After conducting all such tests the list of candidates approved for appointment was said to have been published on 26.11.1992, consisting of about 110 names and the same was subject to verification of character and antecedents, medical fitness and fulfilment of other formalities. Subsequently, it appears that out of 18 selected candidates summoned for verification twelve candidates presented themselves and out of them nine were found to be in shortage of chest measurements and one found to be of under height and therefore excluded from the list of candidates to be appointed.
(3.)The appellants who filed writ petitions participated in the selections but could not be selected for one or the other reason and aggrieved they filed writ petitions in the High court challenging the selections. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petitions found and in the course of the order specifically recorded that the controversy in the cases stood narrowed down to two grounds viz. (i) the marks allocated for viva-voce at 25 in comparison to the marks earmarked for written test at 100. worked out to 20% and the same being in excess of 12 1/2% stood vitiated on account of the law declared by this Court in the decision reported in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others-, AIR 1987 sc 454 = 1985 (4) SCC 417 and therefore the selections stood vitiated and are liable to be set aside the (ii) that the marks in viva-voce was not properly awarded and that not only there was a farce of an interview of every candidate within few minutes but questions put were also irrelevant and not related to the selection for the posts in question. Over ruling the objections of the respondent State and authorities of the Department, the learned Single judge held (a) that the marks allocated at 25 for the viva-voce was against the law declared by this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) and therefore stood vitiated and (b) on going through the records it was found that the marks in the interview seem to have been awarded with a conscious effort to bring up candidates who figured with low marks in the written test by awarding more marks in the viva-voce and low marks awarded to those who secured higher percentage in written test. Therefore the learned Single Judge held that there is no option but to believe that the marks were given in the viva-voce for extraneous consideration. Thereupon the learned Single Judge expressed the view that he was not inclined to quash the appointment of selected candidates which may upset the whole department and operate harshly upon the selected candidates, and instead directed that all those writ petitioners falling in general category who had obtained 56 marks or above in the written examination shall be entitled for appointment as sub-Inspectors of Police, since the last candidate already selected and appointed in general category had obtained 56 marks in the Written examination.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.