IMPORTANT POINT
In service matters, where the parties make false or knowingly inaccurate statements or misrepresentation, there is compelling need for the courts to take serious view to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.

Headnote:Service Law-Selection/non-selection of candidates-Posts of Assistant District Transport Officer-78 persons declared successful in written examination-Subsequently 40 more candidates called for interview by lowering the standard-Writ petitions filed by appellants for quashing select list of candidates-Conduct of appellants in making misrepresentation to Court-Only 25 marks earmarked for interview as against 200 for written test, held not excessive-Appellants, knowing the criteria fixed for selection and allocation of marks, did participate in interview-It was not open for appellants to attack the very criteria-Normally, it is not for the Court to sit in judgment over such assessment and particularly in absence of any malafides or extraneous considerations attributed and established.
       Held : As can be seen from the difference of marks secured by the candidates in interview, it does not appear abnormal or per se does not smell of any foul play or does not appear patently arbitrary. The lowest of the marks given in the interview are 11.5 and the highest are 22.87. Further marks secured in the interview and the marks secured in written test are also not grossly disproportionate. This apart, out of total marks of 240, only 25 marks were earmarked for interview. So 25 marks for interview out of 240 as against 200 for written test and 15 marks for qualification and other activities do not admit an element of arbitrariness or give scope for use of discretion by members of the Interview Committee recklessly or designedly in giving more marks to show favour in interview so as to give an advantage or march to an underserving candidate of their over others who had shown extraordinary merit in written test. From the chart, we find among the candidates, marks secured in the written test were between 119 to 128 except in one case belonging to Scheduled Castes were 114. This apart, the marks secured in the interview are based on the assessment of the Interview Committee. Normally, it is not for the court to sit in judgment over such assessment and particularly in the absence of any mala fides or extraneous considerations attributed and established. The interview marks of 25 as against total marks of 240, cannot be taken as excessive. It comes to 10.4 . Possibly the selection would have been vitiated, if the marks for interview were 100 as against 150 marks for written test as sought to be made out. Unfortunately, for the appellants, their misrepresentation in this regard, is unfolded very clearly as already stated above. Further, the appellants, knowing the criteria fixed for selection and allocation of marks, did participate in the interview; when they are not successful, it is not open to them to turn around and attack the very criteria. The High Court in the impugned order has found that the criteria contained in Annexure R-1 filed in the writ petition was published and that such criteria was adopted earlier also in respect of other selections. (Para 12)
       In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost. Such party must be ready to take consequences that follow on account of its own making. At times lenient or liberal or generous treatment by courts in dealing with such matters are either mistaken or lightly taken instead of learning proper lesson. Hence there is a compelling need to take serious view in such matters to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 4.1.2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The controversy relates to selection/non-selection of candidates to the posts of Assistant District Transport Officer (for short ADTO ). The Punjab Subordinate Selection Board advertised 12 posts of ADTOs on 15.5.1995. Out of them, 7 posts were for the general category, 4 for SC/ST and one was reserved for Ex-servicemen. A written test was conducted on 24.3.1996, the result of which was declared on 1.4.1998, declaring 78 persons successful. Out of these 78 persons, 61 belonged to general category, 15 belonged to SC/ST category and 2 belonged to category of Ex-servicemen. Later, on 22.4.1998, 40 more candidates were declared successful by lowering the standard. Out of these 40 candidates, 21 belonged to general category, 13 to SC/ST category and 6 to Ex-servicemen category. Criteria for selection were framed on 22.4.1998; final result was declared on 15.5.1998 and the appointments were made on 18.5.1998. Out of the candidates selected and appointed, 6 were from the general category, 3 were from SC/ST and 1 from Ex-servicemen category. Out of the 78 candidates whose result was declared on 1.4.1998, 4 candidates belonging to general category were selected. However, out of 40 candidates whose result was declared later, 2 candidates belonging to general category were selected. The appellants in these appeals approached the High Court by filing writ petitions for quashing the select list of the candidates published by the authorities in Tribune dated 23.5.1998, for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider their claim on the basis of their merit from amongst the candidates originally invited for interview and to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from giving effect to the selection made. It may be mentioned here itself that the selected candidates were appointed on 18.5.1998 and having joined the services, they are continuing in service. The High Court considering the rival contentions on their relative merits and after perusing the records did not find any merit in the writ petitions. Consequently, they were dismissed by the impugned common order. Hence, these appeals.

2. Appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 812 of 2002 argued his case as party-in-person and submissions were made by the learned counsel on behalf of the other appellants. We may make it clear at the outset that none of the appellants belonged to the category of either SC/ST or Ex-servicemen and their claim is also not against these categories. Hence, we consider it unnecessary to consider the validity of selection of the candidates made in these two categories. In other words, we confine our consideration to the validity of selection of the candidates made in the general category. Mainly, the submissions made on behalf of the appellants were that after declaration of the result of the written examination on 1.4.1998, standard could not have been lowered for making other 40 candidates eligible for the purpose of interview; criteria could not have been framed after declaration of result of the written examination; maximum 21 candidates could have been called for interview in the ratio of 1:3 in the general category on the basis of the merit of the written examination whereas out of 78 candidates whose result was declared on 1.4.1998, more than 60 candidates were from the general category. In this regard, reliance was placed on Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [1985(4) SCC 417].

3. Learned Additional Solicitor General and learned senior counsel for the respondents at the outset submitted that they have preliminary objection for the very entertaining of these appeals and considering the contentions

advanced on behalf of the appellants on merits having regard to their conduct. According to them, the appellants made de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 585

IMPORTANT POINTIn service matters, where the parties make false or knowingly inaccurate statements or misrepresentation, there is compelling need for the courts to take serious view to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
In service matters, where the parties make false or knowingly inaccurate statements or misrepresentation, there is compelling need for the courts to take serious view to ensure expected purity and grace in the administration of justice.