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.