2004(3) Supreme 593
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Jammu & Kashmir High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Inder Parkash Gupta -Appellant
versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3734 of 2002
With
CA Nos. 3735/2002, 3736/2002, 3737/2002, 3738/2002 and 3739/2002
Decided on 20-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Binu Tamta, Anis Suhrawardy, G.M. Kawoosa, R.K. Talwar, B.S. Banthia, Advocate (NP)/Advocates.
Held : It is true that for allocation of marks for viva voce test, no hard and fast rule of universal application which would meet the requirements of all cases can be laid down. However, when allocation of such mark is made with an intention which is capable of being abused or misused in its exercise, it is liable to be struck down as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 34)
It is also trite that when there is requirement of consultation, in absence of any statutory procedure, the competent authority may follow its own procedure subject to the conditions that the same is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 36)
The Commission was entitled to not only ask the candidates to appear before it for the purpose of verification of records, certificates of the candidates and other documents as regards qualification, experience etc. but could also take viva voce test. But marks allotted therefor should indisputably be within a reasonable limit. Having regard to Rule 8 of 1979 Rules higher marks for viva voce test could not have been allotted as has rightly been observed by the High Court. The Rules must, therefore, be suitably recast. The High Court assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support of its conclusions which have been noticed by us hereinbefore. We agree with the said reasonings. (Paras 38 and 39)
While issuing the Notification dated 22.5.2002 the State evidently did not fully comply with the judgment of the High Court. The appellant in view of the judgment of the High Court was not only entitled to be placed in the select panel above Respondent Nos. 3 and 9 but also should have been given all consequential service benefits which would include monetary benefits, seniority etc. (Para 43)
Interest of justice would be subserved if the State is directed to fully comply with the directions of the High Court by giving all benefits to the appellant herein including monetary benefits and seniority by placing him in the select list above Respondents 3 and 9. (Para 46)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.-
INTRODUCTION :
These six appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
BACKGROUND FACTS :
2. Under the Health Ministry of the State of Jammu and Kashmir there are two different departments, medical health and medical education. The employees working in those departments are borne on separate cadres. The Respondents 3 to 10 before the High Court were appointed as ad hoc lecturers in medicine in the medical education department by the State of Jammu and Kashmir. No recommendation of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission was obtained therefor. The said ad hoc appointments were set aside by this court in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Narender Mohan & Ors. reported in 1994 (2) SCC 630 wherein the State was directed to refer the vacancies to the Commission and make appointments in terms of the recommendations made by it in that behalf. Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, an advertisement was issued by the Commission for some posts of Lecturers on or about 8.3.1994 in the Health and Medical education department. The educational qualification prescribed therefor was "M.D. (Medical/general medical) MCRF, FRCP. Speciality Board of Internal Medical (USA) or an equivalent qualification in the subject with experience as Registrar/Tutor/Demonstrator/Tutor or Senior Resident for a period of two years in the discipline of Medicine, in a teaching medical institution recognised by the Medical Council of India. The notification issued by the Public Service Commission further stipulated that the candidates who possessed any experience in the Line, any distinction in sports/games, NCC activities should furnish certificate, along with the application, to that effect.
3. It is not in dispute that the appointment in the posts of Lecturers was governed by a statutory rule called Jammu & Kashmir Medical (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979 (for short, 1979 Rules; Rule 8 whereof reads thus :-
"8. Method of recruitment : While making selections,-
(1) to the posts in the teaching wing of the service, the Commission/Department Promotion Committee shall have regard to the following, namely, -
(a) Academic qualifications of the candidates;
(b) Teaching experience;
(c) Research experience; and
(d) Previous record of work, if any."
4. The Public Service Commission, however, framed a rule in the year 1980, known as Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission (Business & Procedure) Rules, 1980 (for short, 1980 Rules) although there did not exist any provision therefor. Rule 51 of 1980 Rules is as under :-
"Rule 51. The assessment at an interview shall be based on the following principles :-
A. Performance of the candidate in the viva voce test
.... 100 Marks
B. Academic Merit -
(i) Percentage of marks obtained in the basic (i.e., minimum qualification prescribed for the post
.... 25 Marks
(ii) Higher qualification than the basic (minimum) prescribed for the post such as Diploma or Degree in the concerned Speciality/Superspeciality/Subject/Discipline-
(a) Diploma-2 Marks] subject to
(b) Degree - 5 Marks] a maximum of] 5 marks
C. Experience acquired by the candidate in the concerned Speciality/Superspeciality/Subject/Discipline
(i) exceeding 1 year
but not 2 years ... 2 marks
(ii) for excess
2 years - for every full year 1 mark subject to a total of 5 marks including those under (i)
D. Sports/Game :
Distinction in sports/games (i.e., representing a University, State or Region in any Sports/Games.
...3 Marks
E. Distinction in NCC activities (i.e., having held the rank of Junior Under Officer or S
J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narender Mohan
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Manjit Singh & Ors.
Indian Airlines Corporation v. Capt. K.C. Shukla & Ors.
Anzar Ahamd v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Satpal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Jasvinder Singh & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors.
Vinay Syal & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja & Ors.
Chandra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Union of India & Anr. v. N. Chandrasekharan & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.