advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

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.








No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.