1. Recruitment to Munsiff cadre via competitive examination and promotion — Challenge to successful candidates' lists regarding qualifying marks, evaluation criteria, and composition of the examining body. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 180
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.G. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Civil Appeals Nos. 960 to 968 and 533 to 538 of 1963.
State of Mysore and another (in all the appeals), Appellants v. 1. K. N. Chandrasekhara (in C. A. No. 960 of 1963) 2. K. V. Jayarama (In C. A. No. 961 of 1963) 3. N. S. Asawasthanarayana Rao (In C. A. No. 962 of 1963) 533 4. M.R. Narasimhamurty (In C.A. No. 963 of 1963) 5. M. N. Sheshagiri (In C. A. No. 964 of 1963) 6. M.S. Subarayappa and others (In C.As. Nos. 965 and 536 of 1963) 7. V. K. Kulkarni and others (In C.As. Nos. 966 and 537 of 1963) 8. R. U. Gaulay and others (In C.As. Nos. 967 and 535 of 1963) 9. Mumtaz Ahmad Khan (In C.A. No. 968 of 1963) 10. S. S. Jamboti (In C.A. No. 533 of 1963) 11. T. R. Walveka and others (In C.A. No. 534 of 1963) 12. Mohd. Abdus Saleem and others (In C.A. No. 538 of 1963), Respondents.
With
Writ Petn. No. 62 of 1963.
Krishna Krishna Avadhani, Petitioner
Versus
State of Mysore and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 960 to 968 and 533 to 538 of 1963 with Writ Petn. No. 62 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, for Appellants (In C.As. Nos. 960 to 968 and 533 to 538 of 1963); and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in W.P. No. 62 of 1963); Mr. K. L. Mehta, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1 (In C.As. Nos. 533 to 538, 965 and 966 of 1963); Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 11 and 12 (In C.As. No. 534 of 1963) : Nos. 2 to 8, 10 and 11 (In C.As. Nos. 533, 536 and 538 of 1963) and Nos. 2, 3 and 5 (In C.A. No. 537 of 1963) and Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 12 (In W.P. No. 62 of 1963); Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan; Advocate, for Petitioners (In W.P. No. 62 of 1963) : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Respondent No. 5; (In W.P. No. 62 of 1963).
Advocates:
B.Gopalakrishnan, B.P.SINGH, B.R.G.K.Achar, K.L.Mehta, NAUNIT LAL, R.THIAGARAJAN
B.Gopalakrishnan, B.P.SINGH, B.R.G.K.Achar, K.L.Mehta, NAUNIT LAL, R.THIAGARAJAN
A court cannot use a writ of mandamus to direct the inclusion of specific candidates in a selection list if the process is irregular; it may only quash the list. Promotion suitability is based on service records and merit, distinct from competitive examination marks.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 16, 234 and 309 - Recruitment Rules - Selection for appointment - Scope of writ of mandamus - If a court finds that a selection list was prepared in violation of statutory rules, it may quash the list or dismiss the petition, but it cannot direct the inclusion of specific names in the list of candidates selected for appointment. Such a direction is without authority as the court cannot substitute its own selection for that of the statutory body. (Para 10)
(B) Recruitment - Competitive examination vs. Promotion - Selection for promotion is based on merit and suitability, which involves an assessment of the candidate's general record of service and opinions of superiors, and is distinct from the marks-based eligibility determined in a competitive examination. Performance in a viva voce test conducted for direct recruitment cannot be the sole determinative factor for suitability for promotion. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Recruitment to a judicial cadre was governed by rules prescribing that five out of every six vacancies be filled by competitive examination and one by promotion. After the High Court quashed initial selection lists due to procedural irregularities and the absence of rules for qualifying marks, the rules were amended and fresh tests were conducted. The High Court subsequently issued a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to include certain candidates in the promotion list, reasoning that there was a lack of uniformity in the selection process and that candidates with higher marks in the viva voce should not have been excluded.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in directing the inclusion of specific names in the selection list. The selection for promotion was based on interviews and service records, whereas the competitive examination was based on aggregate marks. The two processes are distinct, and the High Court could not compel the performance of a duty by directing the inclusion of names merely because the petitioners had applied for the same.
Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel a selection body to include specific candidates in a list of successful candidates and whether the criteria for promotion can be equated with the marks-based criteria of a competitive examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that if a selection proceeding is vitiated by irregularity, the court can declare the proceeding void and direct the preparation of a fresh list according to law, but it cannot direct the inclusion of specific individuals in the list. Furthermore, suitability for promotion is a comprehensive assessment of service and merit, which differs from the marks-based eligibility of a competitive examination.
Result: Appeals allowed; order of the High Court vacated.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Validity of Commission fixing qualifying marks — Inclusion of personality and suitability in viva voce — Impact of member absence on examination validity — Right to inclusion in promotion list. (Para 5 , 9 )
3. High Court cannot direct inclusion of names in a selection list via mandamus without quashing the list — Promotion suitability involves service records and High Court opinions beyond viva voce marks. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Mandamus cannot compel a body to include specific names in a selection list if the proceeding is vitiated; the court must either quash the list or uphold it. (Para 10 )
5. Appeals allowed and High Court order vacated; other appeals dismissed as academic; writ petitions dismissed or withdrawn. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. Can a court issue a writ of mandamus to include specific candidates in a selection list if the selection process is found to be irregular?
No. If a selection process is vitiated by irregularity or illegality, the court may declare the proceeding void and set aside the list, but it cannot direct the inclusion of specific names in that list. (Para 10 )
7. Is the performance in a viva voce test for direct recruitment the sole determinant for suitability for promotion?
No. For competitive examinations, marks are the sole test, but for promotion, the Commission considers the interview performance alongside the candidate's general record of service and the opinion of the High Court. (Para 12 )
8. Does a change in the composition of the examining body between different selection stages necessarily invalidate the results?
No, provided the selection for a specific category was based on a consistent process and not on marks from a separate test intended for a different recruitment method. (Para 11 , 12 )
Judgment
SHAH, J. :
The appellants in the two groups of appeals 534 are the State of Mysore and the Mysore Public Service Commission. In the first group of appeals (C.As. Nos. 960 to 968 of 1963) the appellants challenge the order of the High Court of Mysore dated September 4, 1961, quashing a notification dated May 22, 1961, issued by the Public Service Commission announcing the list of candidates declared successful at the competitive examination held in 1961 for recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs in the Judicial Service of the State. Appeals in the second group (C.As. Nos. to 538 of 1963) are preferred against the order of the High Court dated December 19, 1962 quashing the list of successful candidates at the examination held for recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs in the State of Mysore published on July 12, 1962 by the Public Service Commission.
2. By Writ Petitions Nos. 61, 62 and 152 of 1963 certain persons who were candidates for promotion to the cadre of Munsiffs prayed for orders quashing the list of successful candidates declared under Rule 9 (2) of the Mysore State (Recruitment) Rules, 1958, and for direction appointing the applicants as Munsiffs.
3. Recruitment to the cadre of Munsiffs in the Mysore State Judicial Service is regulated by the Mysore Munsiffs (Recruitment) Rules, 1958 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter called "the recruitment rules") framed by the Governor of Mysore in exercise of powers conferred by Art. 234 and the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India. By cl. (1) of R. 3 of the recruitment rules, two methods of recruitment to the cadre are prescribed - by competitive examination and by promotion of persons in service in the High Court and the Courts subordinate to the High Court. Clause (2) of Rule 3 provides that out of every six vacancies, five shall be filled by candidates selected in a competitive examination and the sixth by a candidate selected for promotion. Rule 5 sets out the conditions of eligibility for appointment. The candidate must have reached the prescribed age and must hold a degree in law of any University established by law in India, or possess a qualification recognised as equivalent by the Government. By an amendment made on August 3, 1960, it is provided that the applicant must have practised in Civil or Criminal Courts in India for a period of not less than four years immediately before the last date fixed for submission of the application or must be a stationary Sub-Magistrate, or Magistrate of the First Class, or a Police Prosecutor or Assistant Prosecutor in any of the Criminal Courts in the State, or a ministerial employee of the High Court or of any Court subordinate to the High Court or in the Law Department of the Mysore Government Secretariat the total period of service and the period of practice, if any, together being not less than four years immediately before the last date fixed for submission of the application. A shorter qualifying period is prescribed in respect of candidates belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. R. 6(l) provides that the competitive examination shall be conducted by the Public Service Commission and shall consist of a written examination to test the candidates knowledge of law and languages and a viva voce test. The syllabus for the competitive examination is to be as specified in the schedule to the Rules, and the eligibility of a candidate for appointment as a Munsiff is to be determined by the commission on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and the viva voce test. Clause (4) of R. 6 provides that in the viva voce test the Secretary to Government, Law Department, of any other officer nominated by the Government, shall be associated with the Commission. Rule 9 Sets out the procedure for selection by promotion. By cl.(1) it is prescribed that the candidates for promotion as Munsiffs shall be Selected on grounds of merit and suitability in all respects, from among the candid
