J & K INST.OF MGT.PUBLI ADMIN & RUR DEVT Vs RENU BALA .
Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-006141-006141 / 2013
Diary number: 1142 / 2011
Advocates: SUNIL FERNANDES Vs
AMBHOJ KUMAR SINHA
Page 1
1
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
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.
Page 2
2
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
Page 3
3
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.
Page 4
4
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
Page 5
5
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
Page 6
6
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.
Page 7
7
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.