Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Service

Appointment to post of Sub Inspector of Police – Eligibility – Remanded to DB of HC that it will be open for the Division Bench to call for the expert’s opinion on the questions of which their answers were alleged to be incorrect for which the objections were raised so that if ultimately it is found that the answers with respect to some questions were incorrect and consequently, the marks are added and they may become eligible.

Bysclaw

May 7, 2023
Service Matters

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

SACHIT KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent

( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )

Civil Appeal Nos. 2793-98 of 2023

Decided on : 28-04-2023

Service Law – Appointment to post of Sub Inspector of Police – Eligibility – SC/ST Candidates – Original writ petitioners failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks by one or two marks only, therefore, if some marks would have been added they would be achieving the minimum qualifying marks and therefore, they would have been eligible and their cases would have been considered on merits – High Court has refused to consider the objections on merits on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated period prescribed for submitting the objections and thereby, has refused to get the expert’s opinion, the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals on merits with the observation that it will be open for the Division Bench to call for the expert’s opinion on the questions of which their answers were alleged to be incorrect for which the objections were raised so that if ultimately it is found that the answers with respect to some questions were incorrect and consequently, the marks are added and they may become eligible.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Amit, Advocate, Ms. Vani Vyas, Advocate, Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, Mr. Jayant Mohan, Advocate, Mr. Karma Dorjee, Advocate, Mr. Dechen Wangadi Lachungpa, Advocate, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Advocate, Mr. Aniruddha Mahadevan Sethi, Advocate, Mr. Anil K. Jha, Advocate, Alka Jha, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Amit, Advocate, M/S. Ravi Chandra Prakash & Co., Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J. – Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in respective Letters Patent Appeals, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has not interfered with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, the original writ petitioners -candidates who applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police have preferred the present appeals.

2. That the respondents – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (Commission) invited applications for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police through limited competitive examination from the eligible candidates vide advertisement No. 09/2017. That based on the requisition sent by the parent department, 1544 posts were advertised, against which 3350 applications were received by the Commission. Total 3219 candidates appeared in the examination including the appellants herein. It was mandatory for the candidates to obtain a minimum of 45% of marks in both the papers (Paper-2 and Paper-3) and a total of 50% marks for qualification in the written examination. Five percent relaxation was allowed to the SC/ST candidates in the minimum qualification marks. The examination was based on OMR basis. That out of total 3219 candidates appeared in the examination only 663 candidates were able to obtain the minimum qualification marks in the written examination. Rest including the original writ petitioners – appellants herein were found ineligible having failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks. 399 candidates were declared successful, however, thereafter, on the basis of physical and medical examination, only 396 candidates were found eligible for recommendation and came to be appointed.

2.1 The original writ petitioners who were short of one or two marks in getting the minimum qualifying marks made representations dated 01.12.2017, 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018 and raised the objections against key answers. According to them, key answers with respect to nine questions were wrong and/or incorrect. That thereafter, the respective original writ petitioners filed the writ petitions before the High Court for appropriate reliefs or directing to strike down the questions which were out of the syllabus and/or of which the key answers were incorrect. They prayed for obtaining the experts opinion. The writ petitions were opposed, inter-alia, on the ground that they have not raised any objection within the stipulated time as informed by the Commission i.e., from 01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017. It was pointed that even accepting that all the answers of those questions have wrongly been printed but the same is wrong for all in general, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the original writ petitioners/appellants. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, the appellants herein preferred the present letters patent appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeals, mainly, on the ground that no objections were raised between the period from 01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017 within which the candidates were required to submit their objections, if any, and therefore, their prayer for obtaining the experts opinion and/or for re-evaluation is not required to be granted. The Division Bench of the High Court also observed that even if, there is some discrepancy in the answers such discrepancy is for all the candidates and therefore, no prejudice will be said to be caused to the original writ petitioners. The Division Bench of the High Court also observed that even if the marks would be added of such questions in favour of the writ petitioners/appellants, the same would also be awarded to other candidates and in that view of the matter, there will be no change in the merit position as existing on the date as they were all short of one or two marks from the last selected candidate and if one or two marks would be awarded to them the same would be awarded to the successful candidates as well, therefore, the fact remains the same with respect to the position of the appellants in comparison to the successful candidates.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the letters patent appeals, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeals.

3. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellants – original writ petitioners and Shri Anil K. Jha, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and Shri Jayant Mohan, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the State.

4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners – appellants has submitted that as such the first representation was made by the original writ petitioners on 01.12.2017 which was within the time limit for submitting the objections. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has materially erred in non-suiting the original writ petitioners on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated time for raising the objections.

4.1 It is further submitted that even the High Court has also materially erred in observing that even if the marks would be added of such questions, it will be added to all the candidates and therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to the original writ petitioners. It is submitted that in fact, the respective original writ petitioners were not found eligible solely on the ground that they failed to obtain minimum qualifying marks. It is submitted that as such the respective original writ petitioners were short of one or two marks only in achieving the minimum qualifying marks. It is submitted that therefore, if the marks would have been added of such questions of which the answers were found incorrect, the original writ petitioners would be achieving the minimum qualifying marks and therefore, their cases would have been considered. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has materially erred in observing that no prejudice shall be caused to the appellants even if the marks would have been added of such questions.

4.2 It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that out of 1544 posts advertised only 396 appointments were made and the remaining posts had remained vacant.

5. While opposing the present appeals, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission as well as the State have vehemently submitted that as original writ petitioners failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks and therefore, they were found to be ineligible. It is submitted that as such the original writ petitioners submitted the objections after the prescribed period to raise the objections and therefore, the High Court has rightly non-suited the original writ petitioners.

5.1 It is further submitted that as rightly observed by the High Court that even if there was some discrepancy in the answers with respect to certain questions, the same was with respect to all the candidates and therefore, even if, the marks are added with respect to such questions, no prejudice shall be caused to the original writ petitioners as similar marks will have to be added in case of other selected candidates.

5.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original writ petitioners applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Their cases were not considered for further appointment as they were found ineligible, having failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks. They submitted their objections with respect to nine questions and according to the original writ petitioners, answers with respect to nine questions were incorrect. The Division Bench of the High Court has refused to consider the objections on merits, mainly, on the ground that objections were raised beyond the prescribed period of submitting the objections. The High Court has noted that the objections were filed on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018. However, it is the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the first objection was submitted on 01.12.2017 the copy of which is placed on record (page 235 of SLP paper books). Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the objections on merits and ought to have considered obtaining the experts opinion. The High Court has as such taken too technical view and has erred in refusing to consider the objections on merits. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even if, the objections were raised on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018, the same were prior to the date of the declaration of result i.e., on 09.01.2018. Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the objections on merits and/or called for the experts opinion on nine questions of which as per the original writ petitioners, answers were incorrect. If the experts opinion would have been taken on the correct answers and/or on the answers with respect to such nine questions for which the objections were raised, the truth would have come out.

7. Even, the High Court has materially erred in observing that no prejudice shall be caused to the original writ petitioners even if the marks would have been added with respect to such questions as the marks would be added in case of other successful candidates also. However, it is required to be noted that as the original writ petitioners failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks by one or two marks only, therefore, if some marks would have been added they would be achieving the minimum qualifying marks and therefore, they would have been eligible and their cases would have been considered on merits. Therefore, the High Court is not right in observing that no prejudice shall be caused to the original writ petitioners.

8. As the High Court has refused to consider the objections on merits on the ground that the objections were not raised within the stipulated period prescribed for submitting the objections and thereby, has refused to get the experts opinion, the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh consideration of the appeals on merits with the observation that it will be open for the Division Bench to call for the experts opinion on the questions of which their answers were alleged to be incorrect for which the objections were raised so that if ultimately it is found that the answers with respect to some questions were incorrect and consequently, the marks are added and they may become eligible.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeals are allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals is hereby quashed and set aside. Matters are remitted back to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh decision of Letters Patent Appeals in accordance with law and on its own merits and in light of the observations made hereinabove. The Letters Patent Appeals on remand be decided and disposed of at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of the present order. As observed hereinabove, it will be open for the Division Bench of the High Court to call for the experts opinion with respect to the questions of which the answers were alleged to be incorrect for which the objections were raised. However, the same is left to the High Court. Present appeals are accordingly allowed in terms of the present order. No costs.

By sclaw

Related Post

Service

The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Seniority in government service should be determined as per the service rules, and the date of initial appointment should be the basis for determining seniority, unless the rules provide otherwise.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw
Corruption Service

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d) — The respondent, an Income Tax officer, was denied promotion due to pending criminal charges and a sealed cover procedure was adopted — Whether the mere grant of prosecution sanction constitutes pending criminal charges, justifying the sealed cover procedure — Petitioner argue that the prosecution sanction implies pending criminal charges, warranting the sealed cover procedure — Respondent states that no criminal charges were pending at the time of the DPC meeting, making the sealed cover procedure unjustified —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, rejecting the sealed cover procedure as the charge sheet was filed after the DPC meeting —The prosecution for criminal charges is considered pending only after a charge sheet is issued — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was found fit for promotion.

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw