RANJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-110
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
April 16,2014
RANJAN KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA V. AKHILESH KUMAR SHUKLA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]UDIT NARAIN SINGH MALPAHARIA VS. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
GULABCHAND CHHOTALAL PARIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL VS. NANDLAL KHODTDAS BAROT [REFERRED TO]
PRABODH VERMA DAL CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SARGUJA TRANSPORT SERVICE VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL M P GWALIOR [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH TIWARI VS. SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA [REFERRED TO]
INDU SHEKHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI MISHRA VS. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S VINODH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
TRIDIP KUMAR DINGAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL VS. MAMTA BISHT [REFERRED TO]
J S YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR KAUL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. UCCHAB LAL CHHANWAL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAJ KUMAR MUKHERJEE VS. WEST BENGAL JOINT ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD [LAWS(CAL)-2017-5-44] [REFERRED TO]RAJESH KUMAR SINGH VS. RAJEEV NAIN UPADHYAY [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD SINGH SIROHI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-195] [REFERRED TO]
ANGELIKA SHARMA VS. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(J&K)-2019-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
DR. (MRS.) URMIL RANI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-342] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVIN KUMAR, SON OF LATE L.N. KARAN, RESIDENCE OF FLAT NO.C VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-148] [REFERRED TO]
G.VIJAYAKUMAR VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-391] [REFERRED TO]
SHREYAS SINHA VS. WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSHAN PRASAD SINGH VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
DR. UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ORS VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH RANJAN VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-5-89] [REFERRED TO]
CHARANGOWDA B K S/O B M KADAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKALABIC [LAWS(KAR)-2018-10-360] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
AMRAPALI VS. PANJABRAO DESHMUKH KRISHI VIDYAPEETH [LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
L. TSUKJEMWAPANG VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2023-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
MRINAL BAISHYA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2019-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
U. P. SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION COMMISSION LKO. THRU. SECY. LKO. VS. POONAM DWIVEDI [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-101] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA SACHDEVA VS. HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
SANIT DEBROY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
YASHNAND ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
VA TECH WABAG LIMITED VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKA KAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-3-112] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA KANUNGO VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2024-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
RAM JANAK MAURYA AND ORS VS. STATE OF U P THRU SECY BASIC EDUCATION AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-164] [REFERRED TO]
DR. LEENA S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-9-160] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSHI DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
RUMAN MITRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN PANDURANG SHEJWAL A VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
BIJOY KRISHNA SAHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA VS. ARVIND RAI [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHEEDEELAL YADAW AND ORS. VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH DEVIDAS PATIL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJIT SADHUKHAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-8-187] [REFERRED TO]
SOUMI DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
SOMA DUTTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. NIKETA BABULAL CHAUDHARI [LAWS(GJH)-2021-3-260] [REFERRED TO]
BAROT CHIRAGKUMAR RAMESHBHAI VS. GUJARAT PANCHAYAT SERVICE SELECTION BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2022-12-1856] [REFERRED TO]
JISHU DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. PARMAR NILESH RAJENDRAKUMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
MHONCHUMO T. KIKON VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2024-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ SEKHAR RATH VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
MD. RABAB RAZA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
RENU SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-99] [REFERRED TO]
AMRAPALI W/O ATUL AKHARE VS. PANJABRAO DESHMUKH KRISHI VIDYAPEETH [LAWS(BOM)-2020-1-268] [REFERRED TO]
PRATHMESH VS. DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (IIT) BOMBAY, [LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
AMRAPALI VS. PANJABRAO DESHMUKH KRISHI VIDYAPEETH [LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-280] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA CHANDUBHAI PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-1-192] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH SHARMA VS. LT GOVERNOR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-185] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA KUMAR SOTI VS. STATE BANK OF PATIYALA HEAD OFFICE, MALL & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-227] [REFERRED TO]
MOHIT KUMR DWIVEDI VS. RAM JANAK MAURYA [LAWS(ALL)-2023-10-94] [REFERRED TO]
DIGVIYAJSINH MAHENDRASINH CHAVDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
HARENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, W.B VS. MINARUL ISLAM MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2021-9-67] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDALINGAYYA S/O MRUTUNJAYA HIREMATH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-520] [REFERRED TO]
J.DELIBARN VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-310] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEETA SONKAR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-4-124] [REFERRED TO]
AYODHYA SINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA DEVI WIFE OF NARESH MANDAL VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(PAT)-2021-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
GODADDY.COM VS. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTESH KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-125] [REFERRED TO]
RITA BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
RESHMA MEHBOOBHAI BOBDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
NEHA SHAMATBHAI PARMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-467] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGNESHKUMAR MAHIKARANDAN ISHARANI VS. GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-106] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. NIRAVKUMAR DILIPBHAI MAKWANA [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK BURMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
J.VIJENDAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
KANAI SINGHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-2-94] [REFERRED TO]
RATNA DEY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In these appeals, assail is to the judgment and order dated 19.9.2003
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in a batch of letters
patent appeals whereby the Division Bench has concurred with the opinion
expressed by the learned Single Judge wherein he had quashed the
appointment of a number of appointees in respect of the post, namely,
Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) on the ground that the procedure
adopted for selection was vitiated as the candidates were selected only by
interview without holding any written test though the past practice was to
conduct an examination and thereafter hold interview for selection; that
the interview was held in a hurried manner; and that the posts being
technical in nature, holding of an examination was warranted.
(2.)We need not state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the concerned department of the State Government, 182 persons were appointed on the post of MLT. The writ petitioners who participated in the interview could not be selected as they obtained lesser marks than the successful candidates. Their failure necessitated them to knock at the doors of the High Court and the learned Single Judge, as has been stated hereinbefore, accepting the grounds put forth, quashed the selection.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants have raised two principal contentions, first, most of the appellants herein were not impleaded as respondents before the High Court and without taking note of the said aspect the High Court has invalidated the selection and nullified their appointments which is violative of the principles of natural justice; and second, all the private respondents who were writ petitioners before the High Court having participated in the interview which was the procedure adopted, could not have challenged the said process in a court of law because of their failure, for the same is not permissible in law.
(2.)We need not state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the concerned department of the State Government, 182 persons were appointed on the post of MLT. The writ petitioners who participated in the interview could not be selected as they obtained lesser marks than the successful candidates. Their failure necessitated them to knock at the doors of the High Court and the learned Single Judge, as has been stated hereinbefore, accepting the grounds put forth, quashed the selection.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellants have raised two principal contentions, first, most of the appellants herein were not impleaded as respondents before the High Court and without taking note of the said aspect the High Court has invalidated the selection and nullified their appointments which is violative of the principles of natural justice; and second, all the private respondents who were writ petitioners before the High Court having participated in the interview which was the procedure adopted, could not have challenged the said process in a court of law because of their failure, for the same is not permissible in law.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.