BISHNU BISWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
April 02,2014
Bishnu Biswas
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]P K RAMACHANDRA IYER DR Y P GUPTA DR T S RAMAN OM PRAKASH KHAUDHURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR YADAV STATE OF HARYANA D R CHAUDHARY MEMBER VS. STATE OF HARYANA:SUBHASH CHANDER SHARMA:ASHOK KUMAR YADAV [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA K S MOHI JAIPAL SINGH MALIK RAJ KUMAR JAIN SURAJ BHAN RAKESH GARG A K CHATURVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :ADMINISTRATOR LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI :UNION OF INDIA:ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
DURGACHARAN MISRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
MEHMOOD ALAM TARIQ STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN:KUNJ BIHARI SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SAIN GARG DAVINDER PRITPAL SINGH BALWINDER SINGH CHIRANJI LAL SHARMA CHARANJIT SINGH RAJESH KUMAR SAILI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MUNINDRA KUMAR VI VEK KUMAR RAVINDER SINGH DHAKA VS. RAJIVGOVIL:VIVEKAGGGARWAL:RAJEEVGOVIL [REFERRED TO]
SATPAL RAMLAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
P MOHANAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
K MANJUSREE VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. MITHILESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT [REFERRED TO]
ARUNACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. TAGE HABUNG [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AJAY VS. SUJITH [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-63] [REFERRED TO]SUDESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH DAGAR AND ORS. VS. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF AIR INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-112] [REFERRED TO]
BHARGAV RANCHHODLAL PANCHASARA VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(GJH)-2017-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
JAYESH RAMLAL BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-137] [REFERRED TO]
JENIPHA ELMA FRANCIS PINTO VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-428] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS BALWANT ALASE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-209] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND KUMAR GUPTA VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-244] [REFERRED]
SWAPNA SURENDRAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTSHNAMAYEE MISHRA AND ORS. VS. A.D.M., BOUDH AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
SAKSHI CHAUHAN VS. DR. YASHWANT SINGH PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY [LAWS(HPH)-2021-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAY KUMAR VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BOKARO STEEL LIMITED, BOKARO STEEL CITY, BOKARO [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAY KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAM ISHWAR CHOUDHARY VS. BOKARO STEEL LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-11-223] [REFERRED TO]
AJEET KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-221] [REFERRED TO]
SAMUDRA DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
JIJU K VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-9-533] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA MARWAHA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-1-245] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM RANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-445] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH YADAV, S/O SITA RAM CHOUDHARY; SURESH KUMAR S/O LATE PARMESHWAR RAY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
ATHUL ANTONY A VS. HIGH COURT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-2-252] [REFERRED TO]
SHEKHAR KUMAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-258] [REFERRED TO]
REETA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-211] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CAPTIVE POWER PLANT OF M/S. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED AT KATHARA, P.O. KATHARA, DISTRICT VS. THEIR WORKMEN BEING REPRESENTED BY SHRI KESHAV SINGH YADAV, AREA SECRETARY, BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION, KATHARA, P.O. KATHARA, DISTRICT BOKARO [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-9-102] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF JANKI SAW VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PE [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
NEETU DUBEY VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER NATH VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
CHHANDA KOLEY VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
THUFAIL AND ORS. VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-126] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDRUP JAIDEEP DEV SHARMA VS. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, BHUBANESWAR & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ NAYAN CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
NIRKITABEN MOHITKUMAR SONI VS. REGISTRAR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-184] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-510] [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]
BIHAR YUVA ADHIWAKTA KALYAN SAMITTEE VS. PATNA HIGH COURT [LAWS(PAT)-2018-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-4-127] [REFERRED TO]
UMMER KOYA V. VS. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(KER)-2020-10-351] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM VS. SANJEEV KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
ADESH UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2020-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
NAITIK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-8-122] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH MEHER VS. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-8-65] [REFERRED]
ANUJ SHARMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH GUPTA VS. UTI INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY PRAKASH DWIVEDI & ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-160] [REFERRED]
DALA RAM BHATI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
NACHHATTER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-433] [REFERRED]
SRINIVAS K. GOUDA VS. KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAYA KUMAR SWAIN VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
NABA KUMAR BISWAS VS. BANGIYA GRAMIN VIKASH BANK [LAWS(CAL)-2019-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
DIPANKAR GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
SMITHA CHACKO VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
DALA RAM BHATI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
K.B.N. KARTHIKA VS. A. VINCENT [LAWS(MAD)-2014-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
SUKESH C K VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERN [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-221] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR D. PARWAR VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-340] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN DUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHANA DILIP TALEKAR VS. MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
BADAVATH SURESH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
K SANTOSH KUMAR VS. GOVT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-99] [REFERRED TO]
RITUPAN DUTTA VS. OIL INDIA LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2019-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
DNYANESHWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-4-114] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNABHA SAHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 5.4.2013, passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in W.P.C.T. Nos.607-610 of 2012 partly allowing the appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') allowing the O.A. No.124/AN/2010 and quashing the appointment orders dated 5.2.2009 and 4.6.2009.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are:
A. That an advertisement dated 4.2.2008 was published by the respondent authorities calling for applications from eligible candidates as well as from those who were registered with the Employment Exchange for appointment to the 8 posts of Group 'D' staff. The recruitment rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks.
B. The written examination was held on 25.1.2009 which was given by 870 candidates out of which 573 candidates obtained 20 and above marks.
C. A press notice dated 27.1.2009 was issued calling the successful candidates for interview, though such interview was not part of the recruitment process.
D. The interviews were conducted and a final result sheet was published. In pursuance thereto, appointment letters were issued to the appellants herein.
E. Challenging the said appointments, the unsuccessful candidates filed Original Application before the Tribunal which was allowed, quashing such appointments as equal marks were earmarked for both the written examination and interview which is impermissible in law and that the interview was never part of the recruitment process and thereby ordering initiation of fresh recruitment process.
F. The appointees/appellants challenged the said order before the High Court. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated.
G. In pursuance of the judgment and order of the High Court, termination letters were issued to the appellants. Hence, these appeals.
(3.)Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the employer has a right to prescribe for a higher qualification or a stringent test than prescribed under the statutory rules in order to select the best candidates and once the selection is over and the candidates appeared without any protest, they cannot be permitted to make a summer salt and challenge the selection as a whole. Thus, the judgments impugned i.e. of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court are liable to be set aside.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are:
A. That an advertisement dated 4.2.2008 was published by the respondent authorities calling for applications from eligible candidates as well as from those who were registered with the Employment Exchange for appointment to the 8 posts of Group 'D' staff. The recruitment rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks.
B. The written examination was held on 25.1.2009 which was given by 870 candidates out of which 573 candidates obtained 20 and above marks.
C. A press notice dated 27.1.2009 was issued calling the successful candidates for interview, though such interview was not part of the recruitment process.
D. The interviews were conducted and a final result sheet was published. In pursuance thereto, appointment letters were issued to the appellants herein.
E. Challenging the said appointments, the unsuccessful candidates filed Original Application before the Tribunal which was allowed, quashing such appointments as equal marks were earmarked for both the written examination and interview which is impermissible in law and that the interview was never part of the recruitment process and thereby ordering initiation of fresh recruitment process.
F. The appointees/appellants challenged the said order before the High Court. The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of continuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated.
G. In pursuance of the judgment and order of the High Court, termination letters were issued to the appellants. Hence, these appeals.
(3.)Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the employer has a right to prescribe for a higher qualification or a stringent test than prescribed under the statutory rules in order to select the best candidates and once the selection is over and the candidates appeared without any protest, they cannot be permitted to make a summer salt and challenge the selection as a whole. Thus, the judgments impugned i.e. of the Tribunal as well as of the High Court are liable to be set aside.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.