MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Fine for Misrepresentation or False statement

Supreme Court of India

CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 812 of 2002

PETITIONER:VIJAY SYAL AND ANR.

RESPONDENT:STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/05/2003

BENCH:SHIVARAJ V. PAT1L & ARIJ1T PASAYAT

JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT 2003 Supp(1) SCR 242 The Judgment of a Court was delivered by SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. These appeals are destined opposite a common visualisation and sequence antiquated 4.1.2001 inspected by a Division Bench of a High Court. The debate relates to selection/non-selection of possibilities to a posts of Assistant District Transport Officer (for brief ‘ADTO’). The Punjab Subordinate Selection Board advertised 12 posts of ADTOs on 15.5.1995. Out of them, 7 posts were for a ubiquitous category, 4 for SC/ST and one was indifferent for Ex-servicemen. A created exam was conducted on 24.3.1996, a outcome of that was announced on 1.4.1998, dogmatic 78 persons successful. Out of these 78 persons, 61 belonged to ubiquitous category, 15 belonged to SC/ST difficulty and 2 belonged to difficulty of Ex- servicemen. Later, on 22.4.1998, 40 some-more possibilities were announced successful by obscure a standard. Out of these 40 candidates, 21 belonged to ubiquitous category, 13 to SC/ST difficulty and 6 to Ex-servicemen category. Criteria for preference were framed on 22.4.1998; final outcome was announced on 15.5.1998 and a appointments were done on 18.5.1998. Out of a possibilities comparison and appointed, 6 were from a ubiquitous category, 3 were from SC/ ST and 1 from Ex-servicemen category. Out of a 78 possibilities whose outcome was announced on 1.4.1998, 4 possibilities belonging to ubiquitous difficulty were selected. However, out of 40 possibilities whose outcome was announced later, 2 possibilities belonging to ubiquitous difficulty were selected. The appellants in these appeals approached a High Court by filing command petitions for quashing a name list of a possibilities published by a authorities in Tribune antiquated 23.5.1998, for arising command of mandamus directing a respondents to cruise their explain on a basement of their consequence from among a possibilities creatively invited for talk and to emanate a command in a inlet of breach confining a respondents from giving outcome to a preference made. It cunning be mentioned here itself that a comparison possibilities were allocated on 18.5.1998 and carrying assimilated a services, they are stability in service. The High Court deliberation a opposition contentions on their relations merits and after perusing a annals did not find any consequence in a command petitions. Consequently, they were discharged by a impugned common order. Hence, these appeals.

Appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002 argued his box as party- in-person and submissions were done by a schooled warn on interest of a other appellants. We cunning make it transparent during a opening that zero of a appellants belonged to a difficulty of possibly SC/ST or Ex-servicemen and their explain is also not opposite these categories. Hence, we cruise it nonessential to cruise a outcome of preference of a possibilities done in these dual categories. In other words, we obstruct a caring to a outcome of preference of a possibilities done in a ubiquitous category. Mainly, a submissions done on interest of a appellants were that after stipulation of a outcome of a created conference on 1.4.1998, customary could not have been lowered for creation other 40 possibilities authorised for a purpose of interview; criteria could not have been framed after stipulation of outcome of a created examination; limit 21 possibilities could have been called for talk in a ratio of 1:3 in a ubiquitous difficulty on a basement of a consequence of a created conference given out of 78 possibilities whose outcome was announced on 1.4.1998, some-more than 60 possibilities were from a ubiquitous category. In this regard, faith was placed on Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 417.

Learned Additional Solicitor General and schooled comparison warn for a respondents during a opening submitted that they have rough conflict for a really interesting of these appeals and deliberation a contentions modernized on interest of a appellants on merits carrying courtesy to their conduct. According to them, a appellants done warn falsification with courtesy to a allocation of outlines saying that 150 outlines were for a created exam and 100 outlines for interview. Further, mala fides were attributed to authorities on a basement of a propinquity and domestic influence, that they gave it adult before a High Court nonetheless again reiterated in a SLPs. According to a schooled counsel, these dual drift are good adequate to boot a appeals by revoking leave postulated nonetheless examining them on merits. Although, we find justification in these submissions nonetheless carrying listened a parties during length, we cruise these appeals on a merits of a contentions as well. On interest of a respondents, serve submissions were done explaining a criteria fixed, in what circumstances, some-more series of possibilities were called for talk and how a preference done was acceptable and proper. According to them, small pursuit some-more series of possibilities for talk did not corrupt a preference done carrying courtesy to a contribution and resources of a case; during any rate, a appellants being reduce in merit, even otherwise, could not get any benefit. According to a schooled warn for a respondents, a impugned visualisation of a High Court is ideally current and justified. They also submitted that pursuant to a preference made, a comparison non- central respondents have been stability in use given May, 1998, i.e., they are stability in use for about 5 years by now and as such these are not a fit cases for practice of bureau under Article 136 of a Constitution of India to meddle with a impugned visualisation and order.

It is useful to imitate a draft furnished during a time of conference indicating names of candidates, their categories, qualification, outlines performed in created exam as good as talk and a sum marks:

________________________________________________________________________ C.A.NO. Sr. Name List* No. Category Qualification Marks Written Test Inter perspective lest Total 812/02 1. Umesh Kumar, Appellant 1 G 2(MA-II) 124 12 5 138.5

2. Vijay Kumar, Appellant 1 G 3(MA-II) 126 1 1 5 140.5

3. Karanbir Singh, Resp.4 1 G 1 (Sports) 127 2o5 148*5

4. Gurinderjit Singh, Resp.5 we G —– 127 19 146

5. Tarlochan Singh,Resp.6 1 G —– 124 71 75 145.75

6. Manjit Singh, Resp. 7 we G 2(MA-I1) 123 20.25 145.25 7 Gurcharan Singh. Resp 8 Angrej Singh. Resp .9 8 II G II G I(NSS) 120 120 22.5 143.5 22.87 142.87

9. Sukhwinder Kumar. Res. 101 SC I(NSS/NCC) 121 19.37 141.37

10. Dhien Singh. Resp. II II SC 2(MA) 119 19.5 140.5 ll.Karam Singh. Respt 12 1 SC 2(MA/LLB) 124 15.75 141.75

12.Jaswant Singh, Respt. 13 11 SC 5(MA=2.

NCC-3) 114 21.5 140.5 5986/02 Zulfikar AM, Appl. 5985/02 Gurdeep Singh, Appl 937/02 Sarpinderjit Singh. Appl. 1 G we G 1 G 2(LLB) 122 122 128 12.25 136.25 14.25 136.25 11.5 141.50 2(MA) Not comparison nonetheless improved than all a Appellants Ram Nath 1 G 121 21.75 142.75 Paramjit Singh we G 123 19 142 ___________________________________________________________________________ ____ *Note – The names of a possibilities from among 78 possibilities called for talk for a initial time are shown as in List-I and names of a possibilities from among 40 possibilities called for talk are shown as in List-II.

In para 8 of a Writ Petition No. 7349 of 1998 filed by a appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002, it is averred that he came to know on exploration that a whole preference had been done in a totally capricious and inequitable demeanour to assistance certain comparison candidates; respondent No. 8 is a nephew of Shri Jasdev Singh Sandhu, Chairman of a respondent-Board; sister’s father of Harmail Singh, Minister for Public Works in a benefaction Government is one of a comparison candidates; Shri Angrej Singh, respondent No. 9 is politically very-well connected and is a tighten crony of sitting MLA. In sequence to assistance these persons who did not come within a initial list, second list was issued. In para 10 of a command petition, it is asserted that 100 outlines were kept for talk as opposite a sum outlines of 250 (150 outlines for created exam + 100 outlines for interview) that is totally arbitrary. Thus, 40% outlines have been allocated for talk as opposite 12.2%, that are slight in law. In a riposte to a created matter filed, in para 8, it is settled that attribute of respondent No. 8 with Shri Jasdev Singh Sandhu, a Chairman, is concerned, it is sincerely conceded that this has been mentioned poorly nonetheless not with mala fide intention. In a impugned judgment, a doubt of mala fide is not dealt with, obviously, in perspective of a riposte filed by a appellants to a created matter before a High Court as beheld above. In a impugned judgment, a doubt of allocation of 100 outlines for talk were excess, is also not dealt with as it does not seem to have been urged on interest of a appellants. Criteria for preference were framed on 22.4.1998. The criteria for preference that was constructed is Annexure-R-1 in a command petition before a High Court clearly indicated sum outlines for preference 240, out of them 200 outlines were allocated lor rival test, 15 outlines for additional educational, sports and oilier education and 25 outlines were allocated for interview. The appellants were really many wakeful of Annexure R-l. The impugned sequence shows that a protest of a appellants was in courtesy to a announcement of a criteria, successive to stipulation of a outcome of created examination; not that 100 outlines allocated for talk were excessive. With all this, it is unpleasant to note that a appellants in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002 on page K of List of dates settled that 100 outlines were kept for talk as opposite a sum outlines of 250 (150 outlines for created exam + 100 outlines for interview) It is serve settled that a preference has been done in totally inequitable demeanour as a nephew of a Chairman of a respondent-Board, a sister’s father of a Minister for Public Works and a crony of famous domestic families in Punjab, have been appointed. It cunning be settled here itself that those persons were conjunction done parties nor any details were given touching mala fulcs. At page 34 of SLP in paras K and L, same things are steady as to a subsidy of 100 outlines for talk and also mala fides attributed to certain persons to accommodate a private respondents. It is serve settled that arbitrarily 100 outlines were set detached for talk out of 250 outlines in sequence to assistance them usually and that a whole preference was arbitrary. This is also a state of affairs even with courtesy to a other appellants in other appeals At a conference when forked out, a appellants regretted for a wrong statements and falsification done nonetheless sum that they were not with any mala fide intention. Looking to a background, specific statements done in a riposte filed by a appellant before a High court, being wakeful of a criteria that a outlines for talk were usually 25, carrying given adult mala fides and carrying not urged a same before a High Court and holding note that a appellants have sworn affidavits in support of a SLPs that they supposed a concomitant synopsis, list of dates and paragraphs contained in Special Leave Petitions and that they were wholly conversant with a contribution of a box and that a essence of a confirmation were loyal to their believe and zero component has been secluded there from and no partial of it is false, we find it formidable to accept that a statements were done in a SLPs bonafidely. It appears to us that these statements were done in SLPs to get leave and/or halt orders on a belligerent of extreme outlines allocated for talk and mala fides. In a view, this control of a appellants is condemnable and we cunning straightaway contend nonetheless any perplexity that they have disentitled themselves for any use on this score.

See also  Absence of specific details in Allegations of Cruelty and Harassment, will not attract ingredients of S.304B and 498A IPC

A dais of 3 schooled Judges of this Court in Hari Narain v. Badri Das, [1964] 2 SCR 203 revoked a special leave postulated to a appellant and discharged a interest for creation inaccurate, wrong and dubious matter in SLP watching that “It is of pinnacle significance that in creation component statements and environment onward drift in applications for special leave, caring contingency be taken not to make any statements that are inaccurate, wrong or misleading. In traffic with focus for special leave, a Court naturally takes statements of fact and drift of fact contained in a petitions during their face value and it would be astray to misuse a certainty of a Court by creation statements that are wrong and misleading. That is given we have come to a end that in a benefaction case, special leave postulated to a appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and a interest is dismissed. The appellant will compensate a costs of a respondent.”

Again in Rajabhai Abdul Rehman.Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, [1964] 3 SCR 480, this Court celebrated that “exercise of a bureau of a Court under Article 136 of a Constitution is discretionary; it is exercised sparingly and in well-developed cases, when a estimable doubt of law falls to be dynamic or where it appears to a Court that multiplication by this Court is compulsory to pill critical injustice. A celebration who approaches this Court invoking a practice of this major option of a Court contingency come with purify hands. If there appears on his partial any try to overreach or trick a Court by fake or wrong statements or by self-denial loyal information that would have a temperament on a doubt of practice of a discretion, a Court would be fit in refusing to practice a option or if a option has been exercised in revoking a leave to interest postulated even during a time of conference of a appeal.”

In a same judgment, Hidayatullah, J. concurring with visualisation of Shah J. delivered on interest of himself and Sarkar J., sum that “I have deliberate a matter carefully. This is not a box of a small blunder in a exegesis of contribution or of a bona fide blunder of visualisation that in certain resources cunning be deliberate to be trivial faults. This is a box of being treasonable with a Court by creation out a indicate of law on a assumed state of facts, that facts, if told candidly, leave no room for a row of law. The appellant has by dissembling in this Court prompted it to extend special leave in a box that did not consequence it. we agree, therefore, that this leave should be removed and a appellant, done to compensate a costs of this appeal.”

Yet again, a dais of 3 schooled Judges of this Court in Udai Chand v. Shanker Lal and Ors., [1978] 2 SCR 809 revoked a special leave and discharged it after referring to a decisions in Hari Narain and Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi (supra). It was serve celebrated that this Court can't assent abuses of a routine of law and of law courts.

However, even differently we ensue to inspect on a merits of a contentions urged on possibly side during length and with all seriousness.

From a draft extracted above in courtesy to a outlines cumulative by a appellants and a respondents, it is transparent that respondents 4-7 (in ubiquitous category) were in a initial list i.e. they were from out of a 78 candidates. The appellants can't make protest as distant as these possibilities are endangered in a clarity that they were in a initial list and not in a second list so as to give them advantage. No doubt, respondents 8 and 9 (in ubiquitous category) were called for talk in a second list out of 40 candidates. Admittedly, a outlines cumulative by these respondents are some-more than any of a appellants in a ubiquitous category. It is forked out that a dual possibilities namely Ram Nath and Paramjit Singh in ubiquitous difficulty called in a initial list of a talk have cumulative some-more outlines than all a appellants. Even if a respondents 8 and 9 were to be denied appointment on a belligerent that they were called for a talk in a second list, a position of a appellants could not improve. One some-more fact to be kept in mind is that dual possibilities belonging to Scheduled Castes difficulty carrying cumulative aloft outlines than a appellants could be comparison in a ubiquitous category. Thus, even otherwise, a appellants would not attain in removing comparison for appointments. Merely given 40 some-more possibilities were called for talk nonetheless anything more, preference of a possibilities does not get debauched utterly so when malafides were given adult and 100 outlines were not allocated for talk as poorly settled by a appellants.

As can be seen from a disproportion of outlines cumulative by a possibilities in interview, it does not seem aberrant or per se does not smell of any tainted play or does not seem plainly arbitrary. The lowest of a outlines given in a talk are 11.5 and a top are 22.87. Further outlines cumulative in a talk and a outlines cumulative in created exam are also not grossly disproportionate. This apart, out of sum outlines of 240, usually 25 outlines were earmarked for interview. So 25 outlines for talk out of 240 as opposite 200 for created exam and 15 outlines for gift and other activities do not acknowledge an component of arbitrariness or give operation for use of option by members of a Interview Committee quick or resolutely in giving some-more outlines to uncover foster in talk so as to give an advantage or impetus to an undeserving claimant of their over others who had shown unusual consequence in created test. From a chart, we find among a candidates, outlines cumulative in a created exam were between 119 to 128 solely in one box belonging to Scheduled Castes were 114. This apart, a outlines cumulative in a talk are formed on a comment of a Interview Committee. Normally, it is not for a probity to lay in visualisation over such comment and utterly in a deficiency of any mala fides or unconnected considerations attributed and established. The talk outlines of 25 as opposite sum outlines of 240, can't be taken as excessive. It comes to 10.4%. Possibly a preference would have been vitiated, if a outlines for talk were 100 as opposite 150 outlines for created exam as sought to be done out. Unfortunately, for a appellants, their falsification in this regard, is unfolded really clearly as already settled above. Further, a appellants, meaningful a criteria bound for preference and allocation of marks, did attend in a interview; when they are not successful, it is not open to them to spin around and conflict a really criteria. The High Court in a impugned sequence has found that a criteria contained in Annexure R-l filed in a command petition was published and that such criteria was adopted progressing also in honour of other selections.

The appellants heavily relied on a preference of this Court by 4 schooled Judges in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s box (supra) in support of their contentions that where there is a combination exam consisting of created conference followed by viva voce test, a series of possibilities to be called for talk on a basement of outlines performed in a created conference should not surpass twice or during a top thrice a series of vacancies to be filled; serve outlines allocated to viva voce exam should not be some-more than 12.2%. The schooled warn for a respondents from a really visualisation forked out that it does not allege a box of a appellants carrying courtesy to a contribution and resources of a cases during hand. In a aforementioned box of Yadav. a contribution were that in October, 1980. Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) invited applications for recruitment to 61 posts in Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and Allied Services. The recruitment was governed by a Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 as germane in a State of Haryana. In response to that announcement released by HPSC, about 6000 possibilities practical for recruitment and seemed during a created examination. Out of them, over 1300 performed some-more than 45% outlines and were called for interview. HPSC invited all a 1300 and peculiar possibilities for talk and a interviews lasted for roughly half a year. Though originally, applications were invited for recruitment to 61 posts, a series of vacancies during a time taken in a created conference and viva voce exam rose to 119. It seems there were some candldates who had performed really high outlines during a created conference nonetheless overdue to securing bad outlines in a viva voce test, they could not come within initial 119 possibilities and hence they were not selected. Aggrieved by a non-selection, they filed command petitions in a we High Court severe a outcome of a selection. It was contended that a outlines given in a viva voce exam should be abandoned and preference should be done usually on a basement of a outlines performed by a possibilities during a created examination. The command petitions were authorised by a Division Bench of a High Court. Hence, a appeals were filed before this Court depressed by a visualisation of a High Court. The High Court took a perspective that there was reasonable odds of disposition vitiating a preference routine formed on a fact that nonetheless usually 61 empty posts were advertised over 1300 possibilities representing some-more than 20 times a series of accessible vacancies were called for viva voce test. The Division Bench forked out that in sequence to have correct change between a pattern comment of a created conference and a biased comment of celebrity by a viva voce test, a possibilities to be called for talk during viva voce exam should not surpass twice or during a highest, thrice a series of accessible vacancies. Since a possibilities were called 20 times a series of accessible vacancies, a High Court hold that a preference routine was vitiated. This Court disagreed with this end reached by a Division Bench of a High Court. While doing so, this Court celebrated that HPSC was not right in pursuit for talk all a 1300 and peculiar candidates; it was formidable to see how a viva voce exam for scrupulously and satisfactorily measuring a celebrity of a claimant can be carried if over 1300 possibilities were to be interviewed for recruitment to a use if viva voce exam was to be carried out in a consummate and systematic manner, to arrive during a acceptable and acceptable analysis of a celebrity of a candidate, a talk contingency take anything between 10 to 30 minutes. This Court, while deliberation a doubt possibly preference done by HPSC after pursuit 1300 possibilities for talk was debauched on that account, in divide 21, hold thus:-

See also  Whether person inducted by court receiver can claim protection of rent law?

“We do not consider that a selections done by a Haryana Public Service Commission could be pronounced to be debauched merely on a belligerent that as many as 1300 and some-more possibilities representing some-more than 20 times a series of accessible vacancies were called for interview, nonetheless on a perspective taken by us that was not a right march to follow and not some-more than twice or during a top thrice, a series of possibilities should have been called for interview. Something some-more than merely pursuit an unduly vast series of possibilities for talk contingency be shown in sequence to nullify a selections made. That is given a Division Bench use on a analogous sum of outlines performed in a created conference and during a viva voce exam by a petitioners, a initial 16 possibilities who surfaced a list in a created conference and a initial 16 possibilities surfaced a list on a basement of a sum outlines performed in a created conference and a viva voce test, and celebrated that these sum showed that there was reasonable odds of arbitrariness and disposition carrying operated in a imprinting during a viva voce test. Now it is loyal that some of a petitioners did utterly good in a created conference nonetheless fared badly in a viva voce exam and in fact their opening during a viva voce exam seemed to have run-down in comparison to their opening in a year 1977-78. Equally it is loyal that out of a initial 16 possibilities who surfaced a list in a created examination, 10 cumulative bad rating in a viva voce exam and were knocked out of a tab while 2 also got low outlines in a viva voce exam nonetheless usually managed to scratch by to come within a operation of selection. It is also loyal that out of a initial 16 possibilities who surfaced a list on a basement of a sum outlines performed in a created conference and a viva voce test, 12 could come in a list usually on comment of high outlines performed by them during a viva voce test, nonetheless a outlines performed by them in a created conference were not of amply high order. These sum relied on by a Division Bench cunning emanate a guess in one’s mind that some component of arbitrariness cunning have entered a comment in a viva voce examination. But guess can't take a place of explanation and we can't strike down a selections done on a belligerent that a analysis of a merits of a possibilities in a viva voce conference cunning be arbitrary. It is compulsory to indicate out that a Court can't lay in visualisation over a outlines awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is valid or apparent that a imprinting is painly and indoubtably capricious or influenced by ambiguous motives. It is usually if a comment is plainly capricious or a risk of arbitrariness is so high that a reasonable chairman would courtesy arbitrariness as inevitable, that a comment of outlines during a viva voce exam cunning be regarded as pang from a clamp of arbitrariness. Moreover, detached from usually 3 candidates, namely Trilok Nath Sharma, Shakuntala Rani and Balbir Singh one of whom belonged to a ubiquitous difficulty and was associated to Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur and a other dual were possibilities for a seats indifferent for Scheduled Castes and were associated to Shri R.C.Marya, there was no other claimant in whom a Chairman or any members of a Haryana Public Service Commission was interested, so that there could be any belligerent for strategy of a outlines during a viva voce examination. There were of march ubiquitous allegations of casteism done opposite a Chairman and a members of a Haryana Public Service Commission, nonetheless these allegations were not substantiated by producing any arguable component before a Court. The Chairman and member of a Haryana Public Service Commission in fact belonged to opposite castes and it was not as if any sold standing was supposed among a Chairman and members of a Haryana Public Service Commission so as even to remotely transparent an deduction that a outlines cunning have been manipulated to foster a possibilities of that caste. We do not consider that a Division Bench was right in distinguished down a selections done by a Haryana Public Service Commission on a belligerent that they were debauched by arbitrariness or by reasonable odds of bias.”

In that box a outlines allocated for viva voce exam came to 22 2% of a sum series of outlines kept for a rival examination. This commission of 33.3% was in a box of Ex-service officers and 22.2% was in a box of other candidates.

As regards a allocation of outlines for interview, in paras 23 and 24 of a same visualisation it is settled thus:-

“23. This Court vocalization by Chinnappa Reddy, J forked in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, [1982] 1 SCR 320 that a intent of any routine of preference for entrance into open use is to secure a best and a many suitable chairman for a job, avoiding clientele and favouritism. Selection formed on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is a essential substructure of any useful and fit open service. So open rival conference has come to be supposed roughly zodiacally as a gateway to open services But a doubt is how should a rival conference be devised? The rival conference cunning be formed exclusively on created conference or it cunning be formed exclusively on verbal talk or it cunning be a reduction of both. It is wholly for a Government to confirm what kind of rival conference would be suitable in a given case. To quote a disproportion of Chinnappa Reddy, J. “In a really inlet of things it would not be within a range or even a cunning of a Court and a Court would not try into such disdainful thickets to learn ways out, when a matters are some-more reasonably left” to a believe of a experts. It is not for a probity to lay down possibly talk exam should be hold during all or how many outlines should be authorised for a talk test. Of march a outlines contingency be minimal so as to equivocate charges of arbitrariness, nonetheless not indispensably always. There cunning be posts and appointments, where a usually correct process of preference cunning be by a viva voce test. Even in a box of acknowledgment to aloft grade courses, it cunning infrequently be compulsory to concede a sincerely tallness commission of outlines for a viva voce test. That is given firm manners can't be laid down in these matters by courts. The consultant bodies are generally a best judges. The Government aided by experts in a margin cunning reasonably confirm to have a created conference followed by a viva voce test.

24. It is now certified on all hands that while a created conference assesses a candidate’s believe and egghead ability, a viva voce exam seeks to consider a candidate’s altogether egghead and personal qualities. While a created conference has certain graphic advantages over a viva voce test, there are nonetheless no created tests that can weigh a candidate’s initiate, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, ability for transparent and judicious presentation, efficacy in discussion, efficacy in assembly and traffic with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, egghead and dignified integrity. Some of these qualities can be evaluated, maybe with some grade of error, by viva voce test, many depending on a structure of a talk board.”

Even carrying found allocation of 22.2% outlines for viva voce exam were irrational and excessive, preference was not dissapoint as settled hereunder:-

“28. But a doubt that afterwards arises for caring is as to what is a outcome of allocation of such a high commission of outlines for a viva voce test, both in box of ex-service officers and in box of other candidates, on a selections done by a Haryana Public Service Commission. Though we have taken a perspective that a commission of outlines allocated for a viva voce exam in both these cases is excessive, we do not consider we would be fit in a practice of a option in environment aside a selections done by a Haryana Public Service Commission after a relapse of roughly dual years. The possibilities comparison by a Haryana Public Service Commission have already been allocated to several posts and have been operative on these posts given a final about dual years. Moreover a Punjab Civil Set clamp (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 underneath that 33.3% outlines in box of ex-service officers and 22.2% outlines in box of other possibilities have been allocated for a viva voce exam have been in force for roughly 50 years and everybody has acted on a basement of these rules. If selections done in suitability with a medication contained in these manners are now to be set aside, it will dissapoint a vast series of appointments already done on a basement of such selections and a firmness and potency of a whole executive machine would be severely jeopardized. We do not therefore introduce to set aside a selections done by a Haryana Public Service Commission nonetheless they have been done on a basement of an unduly high commission of outlines allocated for a viva voce test.”

This Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s case, aforementioned, found allocation of 12.2% outlines for viva voce exam was acceptable and usually and in that perspective destined that outlines allocated for a viva voce exam shall not surpass 12 2% of a sum outlines taken into comment for a purpose of selection. Even judged by this customary in a benefaction appeals, a outlines allocated for viva voce exam being 25 as opposite sum outlines of 240 are reduction than 12.2% i.e. good within a ambit of instruction given. In that case, this Court declined to practice option to set aside a preference done by a HPSC after a relapse of 2 years holding note that a comparison possibilities had already been allocated to several posts.

In All India State Bank Officers’ Federation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 9 SCC 151, this Court observed, “there can be no firm or tough and quick sequence that a talk outlines can usually be 15 per cent and no more. The commission of outlines for viva voce or talk that can be regarded as irrational will count on a contribution of any box Decisions of this Court uncover that no firm rule, relating to commission of outlines lor talk of ubiquitous concept focus can or has been laid down. What a talk or viva voce outlines should be cunning change from use to use and a bureau or position or a purpose for that a talk is to be held. But a talk outlines should not be so high as to give an management violent operation to manipulate or act in an capricious demeanour while creation selection.”

This Court in a new preference in Jasvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of J&Kand Ors., [2003] 2 SCC 132, after referring to progressing decisions, forked out that a really observations done in Ashok Kumar Yadav’s box uncover that there can't be any tough and quick sequence of concept focus for allocating a outlines for viva voce vis-a-vis a outlines for created conference and hence a commission indicated therein alone can't be a norm in all cases; what eventually is compulsory to be ensured is as to possibly a allocation as such is with an ambiguous goal and possibly it is so capricious as able of being abused and dissipated in a exercise. Para 7 of a pronounced visualisation reads:-

See also  What are the powers of the high court in the challenge of disciplinary action against an employee?

“7. In Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, [1988] 3 SCC 241, medication of 33% as smallest subordinate outlines of 60 out of sum 180 outlines set detached for viva voce conference does not by itself catch any fundamental infirmity. In Manjeet Singh v.ESI Corpn.. [1990] 2 SCC 367 this Court hold that in a deficiency of any medication of subordinate outlines for a talk exam a same 40% as germane for created conference was reasonable. In Anzar Ahmad v. State of Bihar, [1994] 1 SCC 150 this Court exhaustively reviewed a whole box law on a theme including a one in Ashok Kumar Yadav box and inspected a preference process that concerned allocation of 50% outlines for educational opening and 50 outlines for a interview. The really observations in Ashok Kumar Yadav box would go to uncover that there can't be any hard-and-fast sequence of concept focus for allocating a outlines for viva voce vis-a-vis a outlines for created conference and hence a commission indicated therein alone can't be a norm in all cases. What eventually compulsory to be ensured is as to possibly a allocation, as such is with an ambiguous goal and possibly it is so capricious as able of being abused and dissipated in a exercise. Judged from a above a Division Bench could not be hold to have committed any blunder in nutritious a allocation of 25 outlines (20%) for viva voce as opposite 100 outlines for created conference for preference of possibilities in a benefaction case. The schooled Single Judge, in a view, has adopted a extraneous practice and proceeded on a disagreement of a genuine ratio of a preference in Ashok Kumar Yadav case. Further, a schooled Single Judge appears to have practical a ultimate preference in a pronounced case. to a box on palm sketch certain inferences on small assumptions and surmises or some remote possibilities, nonetheless any correct or tangible substructure or basis, there for.”

The observations done in para 8 of a same visualisation in rather identical resources that have disastrous impact on a contentions urged on interest of a appellants are:-

“8. The schooled singular Judge also seems to have been really many carried divided by few instances beheld by him as to a endowment of aloft commission of outlines in viva voce to those who got reduce outlines in a created exam as compared to some who scored aloft outlines in a created conference nonetheless could not get as many aloft outlines in viva voce. Picking adult a immaterial few instances tan not yield a basement for possibly distinguished down a process of preference or a selections eventually made. There is no pledge that a chairman who fared good in a created exam will or should be reputed to have fared good in a viva voce exam and also and a consultant opinion about as good as knowledge in viva voce does not lend faith to any such ubiquitous assumptions, in all resources and for all eventualities. That apart, a movement of created exam outlines of those who were found to have been awarded aloft outlines in viva voce vis-a-vrs those who cumulative aloft outlines in a created exam nonetheless not so in a viva voce can't be pronounced to be so many (varying from 5 outlines and during any rate next even 10) as to aver any explanation of fundamental clamp in a really complement of preference or a tangible preference in a box we here was no specific claim of any mala fides or disposition opposite a Hoard constituted for preference or anyone in a Board nor any such defence could be pronounced to have been substantiated in this case. The regard by a schooled Single Judge that there was a unwavering bid done for bringing some possibilities within a preference territory can't he pronounced to be fit from a small fact of certain instances beheld by him on any ubiquitous element or even on a merits of those significant instances alone. Further, a march adopted by a schooled Single Judge in directing preference from ubiquitous possibilities of all those who have performed 56 outlines in a created conference can't be fit during all and it is not given to a Court to change a really process of preference and totally allot with viva voce in honour of a territory alone of a candidates, for functions of selection. On a clever and altogether caring of a judgments of a schooled Single Judge and that of a Division Bench, we are of a perspective that a preference of a schooled Single Judge can't be postulated for a reasons reserved by him and a preference of a Division Bench can't be deliberate to humour any such critical feebleness in law to call for a interference.”

In Civil Appeal No. 937 of 2002 a schooled warn for a appellant urged an additional belligerent that 5 outlines bound for aloft educational education were not given to a appellant. According to him a appellant had additional education of M.A. and LL.B.; he ought to have been given additional outlines for M.A. as good as LL.B., nonetheless usually 2 outlines were given for both a education together, that influenced his possibility of selection. It appears that this indicate was not urged before a High Court and no eventuality was accessible to a respondents to accommodate this point. However, during a march of hearing, formed on a criteria bound for selection, it was explained to us by a schooled warn for a respondents that for additional educational education 5 outlines were set apart. Out of them limit outlines accessible to a top educational gift of a claimant were to be given and not that outlines were to be given to any additional educational qualification. It is improved to demeanour during a criteria, that was filed as Annexure R-l in a command petition, that is reproduced hereunder: –

_______________________________________________________________________ “ANNEXURE R-l CRITERIA/FORMULA ADOPTED FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF NAIB TEHSILDAR BY THE SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD, PUNJAB

(ii) Marks allotted for Additional Educational, sports 15 and other Qualifications

(iii) Marks allotted for interview/ (VIVA-VOCE) 25 I. A. Marks allotted for Educational Qualification

(ii) M.A./M.Sc./M.Tech and other post connoisseur degrees 2nd Division and___________________________________________________________________ Note: The claimant will be given a outlines on a basement of his/her top gift and not on a basement of his/her any gift reduce than this.

__________________________________________________________________________ II. B. SPORTS/EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 5

(i) Sports A Certificate I

(iii) N.S.S.

III. INTERVIEW Interview outlines of a Board will be 25 and a complement for awarding a outlines would be same as authorized alone for all categories. Sd/-

(Jasdev Singh Sandhu) Chairman
14.1.1999
Sd/- Sd/-
(Kulbir Singh Randhawa) (Ashok Loomba)
Member Member
Sd/- Sd/-
(Parkash Singh Gardhiwal) (Virsa Singh Valioha) Member
Member
Sd/-
(Jarnail Singh Wahid) Member”
___________________________________________________________________________ ____ From Annexure R-1 it is transparent that sum outlines for preference were 240. Marks allocated for rival exam were 200, outlines allocated for additional educational, sports and other education were 15 and outlines allocated for talk (Viva voce) are 25. Marks allocated for educational education are 5 and limit outlines are 5 for Ph.D., for post graduation in initial multiplication 3 marks, for second and third groups 2 marks, for LL.B. 2 outlines and any other gift 1 mark. If a evidence of a schooled warn for a appellant is to be accepted, it cunning outcome in supernatural situation. Suppose, a candidate, who possesses 3 additional education including Ph.D., in that eventuality he would be entitled 5 outlines for Ph.D. and additional outlines for any additional educational qualifications. Then a sum outlines to be reserved to a claimant for a educational education shall be some-more than 5 marks. In a box of a appellant, nonetheless he had dual additional educational qualifications, a limit outlines to that he was entitled for top gift were given. Hence he can't make any grievance. This being a position, we do not find any consequence in a contention. Hence it is rejected.

In Civil Appeal No. 5985 of 2002 it was urged that no outlines were given to a appellant for additional educational qualifications. It appears that this indicate also was not lifted before a High Court and likewise no eventuality was accessible to a respondents to accommodate a point. The schooled warn for a appellant contended that a appellant had additional post graduation gift and no outlines were given to him. It was brought to a notice by display a strange record that in a focus form no discuss was done about additional post graduation gift acquired by a appellant and no record or certificate was placed before a authorities during suitable time to uncover that a appellant had acquired additional qualifications. Hence a row has no consequence and hence it is rejected.

In these appeals, a non-official respondents carrying been allocated in May, 1998, are stability in use roughly for a duration of 5 years. On this belligerent as good as looking to a control of a appellants in creation falsification to this Court and anticipating no consequence in these appeals, we should decrease to meddle with a impugned visualisation and order. It cunning be remarkable that even in a Ashok Kumar Yadav ‘s box (supra) this Court set aside a visualisation of a Division Bench of a High Court by rejecting a plea to a outcome of a preference done by a HPSC.

In sequence to means and say sanctification and gravity of a record in law courts it is compulsory that parties should not make fake or knowingly, fake statements or falsification and/or should not disguise component contribution with a pattern to advantage some advantage or advantage during a hands of a court, when a probity is deliberate as a place where law and probity are a honest pursuits. If any celebration attempts to infect such a place by adopting chance to make falsification and is concealing component contribution it does so during a risk and cost. Such celebration contingency be prepared to take consequences that follow on comment of a possess making. At times kindly or magnanimous or inexhaustible diagnosis by courts in traffic with such matters are possibly mistaken or easily taken instead of training correct lesson. Hence there is a constrained need to take critical perspective in such matters to safeguard approaching virginity and beauty in a administration of justice.

Before we partial with these cases, we contingency observe that a falsification done by a appellants in a SLPs upheld by an confirmation need critical movement nonetheless we refrain from holding any serve movement in perspective of a reparation and bewail voiced by a appellants during a hearing. But, we discharge a warning to them to be clever in destiny and not to make any falsification or fake matter before any probity and levy cost also.

For a reasons settled and row done above, these appeals are discharged nonetheless with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. 5000 to be paid by any of a appellants) in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002 and Rs. 5,000 in any one of a remaining appeals to be paid by a appellants that volume shall be deposited with a Legal Aid Committee of a Supreme Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  What is difference between Ordinary trustee and Hereditary trustee?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation