B RAMANJINI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
April 26,2002
S.RAMANJINI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION U P ALLAHABAD VS. GHANSHYAM DAS GUPTA [REFERRED]BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD VS. SUBHAS CHANDRA SINHA [REFERRED]
S P SAMPATH KUMAR J N GUPTA D J SOMAIYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
INDERPREET SINGH KAHLON VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-59] [REFERRED TO]UOI VS. A K MEHROTRA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2009-9-247] [REFERRED TO]
AJITBHAI JIVRAJBHAI PARMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2011-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF VS. DAYA SHANKER TIWARI [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-239] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-178] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SINGH VS. VIDYADHIRAJ PANDEY [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-204] [REFFERED TO]
SANGITA YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA RANI VS. CHAIRMAN GREATER N O I D A [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-173] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-228] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK MASTANVALI VS. CORRESPONDENT [LAWS(APH)-2002-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
KONA SRINIVAS VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-112] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN RAO YALAMANCHAIRUCHI CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
CANCER RELIEF SOCIETY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSION OF LABOUR AND CONTORING AUTHORITY [LAWS(BOM)-2004-2-153] [REFERRED TO]
SANGITA YADAV VS. GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2006-11-232] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN DAGADU MEDEKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
ALKA UMESH ZADGAONKAR VS. NAGPUR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-91] [REFERRED TO]
P VADIVEL VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NEW DELHI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-114] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-357] [REFERRED TO]
S GANESH RAM VS. VICE CHANCELLOR TAMIL NADU DR.M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND TOLANI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND MOHAN JHA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
DURGADAS PURKYASTHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2002-7-51] [REFERRED]
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-61] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER CALCUTTA TELEPHONES DISTRICT VS. SURENDRA NATH PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-2011-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
SEVERN TRENT WATER PURIFICATION INC VS. CHLORO CONTROLS INDIA PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(SC)-2008-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN ALL INDIA RAILWAY REC BOARD VS. K SHYAM KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR LAL BAJAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2002-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
U P GRAM PANCHAYAT ADHIKARI SANGH VS. DAYA RAM SAROJ [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-187] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA KUMARI VS. BOARD OF SEC EDUCATION RAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
GAYATRI VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-287] [REFERRED TO]
CHHATTISGARH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2010-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
ANJANI KUMAR SONI S/O LATE SRI RAM GOPAL SONI VS. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
NEETU SINGH MARKAM VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-9-111] [REFERRED TO]
SHISHUVENDRA SINGH TOMAR VS. THE STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2014-9-113] [REFERRED TO]
DILEEP SINGH AND OTHERS VS. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, BHOPAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2006-5-164] [REFERRED TO]
RUCHI CHOUDHARI AND ANOTHER VS. JUDGES COMMITTEE AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
RISHABH SAXENA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
PAVITRA BOHRA VS. RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
AMARBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-366] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR PATHAK S/O LATE YOGENDRA PATHAK VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPAL SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-103] [REFERRED TO]
AMRESH PRASAD JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-126] [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT TIWARI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-161] [REFERRED TO]
TUSHANT VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPTI JHA AND ORS. VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-61] [REFERRED TO]
AMARBIR SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2003-7-184] [REFERRED TO]
G. MUTHURAJAN VS. THE STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. PARMAR NILESH RAJENDRAKUMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
MOHIT PANWAR & ORS. VS. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
PANCHANAN SAHOO VS. HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
NIDHI KAIM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ETC. [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-93] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA KUMAR BAIRAGI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2005-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR P AND ORS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-524] [REFERRED]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD , AND ORS VS. REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2013-11-325] [REFERRED]
KIRAN JUNEJA AND ORS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2007-12-179] [REFERRED]
THAKUR PRASAD MAURYA (T.P. MAURYA) S/O LATE R.D. MAURYA VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JYOTI KHARE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-167] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATH & 4 ORS VS. D M , LAKHIMPUR KHERI & 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ASHOK NIGAM VS. LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-212] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA GOPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. RESPONDENT [LAWS(ALL)-2018-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
BRAMHA PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-115] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA GOPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-6-35] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH PRADHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-206] [REFERRED TO]
PROBIRTH D. MARAK VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2020-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN KUMAR VS. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Civil Appeal No. 6461/1998
An original application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] by respondent No. 5 for declaration of results of 1998 District Selection Committee written test in Anantapur District, for declaration that it is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and for a direction to declare the appropriate results. The Tribunal noticed that originally examinations had been held on 19.4.1998 and 20.4.1998 in Anantapur District to select secondary school teachers mainly for Language Pandit cadre. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by an order made on 15.5.1998, after noticing certain allegations of mass copying cancelled the examination of the District Selection Committee in respect of Anantapur District and directed further action being taken in the matter. Thereafter examinations were held on 11.7.1998. Results of the same were published on 29.7.1998 and interviews were conducted on 27.8.1998. The Tribunal noticed that inasmuch as the Government had already cancelled the examinations did not consider it fit to order an enquiry into various lapses in Anantapur District and held that the main relief to declare the results had become infructuous. On that basis, the Tribunal disposed of the application. The matter was carried by way of a writ petition before the High Court.
(2.)The contentions raised before the High Court are that the Government had cancelled examinations in Anantapur District on the basis of newspaper reports and such issues has been raised on the floor of the Legislative Assembly; that there was no other material, much less, legally acceptable to cancel examinations; that the circumstances and the material are similar to other districts and following the analogy of Anantapur District, the Government ought to have cancelled the examinations in all the districts as they are similarly situated and in not doing so, the Government had acted with discrimination; that the Tribunal ought to have directed the publication of results in all the centres of Cuddapah, but erred in withholding the declaration of results even ignoring the report of the Secretary to the School Education.
(3.)The High Court found that an enquiry had been held in respect of other districts and on the basis of the enquiry concluded that there was no need to cancel the examinations en-mass, as disclosed in the letter dated 24.4.1998 sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister an enquiry report had been called for but even in the absence of such an enquiry or report, the Government could not have cancelled the examinations.
An original application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] by respondent No. 5 for declaration of results of 1998 District Selection Committee written test in Anantapur District, for declaration that it is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and for a direction to declare the appropriate results. The Tribunal noticed that originally examinations had been held on 19.4.1998 and 20.4.1998 in Anantapur District to select secondary school teachers mainly for Language Pandit cadre. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by an order made on 15.5.1998, after noticing certain allegations of mass copying cancelled the examination of the District Selection Committee in respect of Anantapur District and directed further action being taken in the matter. Thereafter examinations were held on 11.7.1998. Results of the same were published on 29.7.1998 and interviews were conducted on 27.8.1998. The Tribunal noticed that inasmuch as the Government had already cancelled the examinations did not consider it fit to order an enquiry into various lapses in Anantapur District and held that the main relief to declare the results had become infructuous. On that basis, the Tribunal disposed of the application. The matter was carried by way of a writ petition before the High Court.
(2.)The contentions raised before the High Court are that the Government had cancelled examinations in Anantapur District on the basis of newspaper reports and such issues has been raised on the floor of the Legislative Assembly; that there was no other material, much less, legally acceptable to cancel examinations; that the circumstances and the material are similar to other districts and following the analogy of Anantapur District, the Government ought to have cancelled the examinations in all the districts as they are similarly situated and in not doing so, the Government had acted with discrimination; that the Tribunal ought to have directed the publication of results in all the centres of Cuddapah, but erred in withholding the declaration of results even ignoring the report of the Secretary to the School Education.
(3.)The High Court found that an enquiry had been held in respect of other districts and on the basis of the enquiry concluded that there was no need to cancel the examinations en-mass, as disclosed in the letter dated 24.4.1998 sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister an enquiry report had been called for but even in the absence of such an enquiry or report, the Government could not have cancelled the examinations.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.