2006 Supreme(SC) 971

2007(1) Supreme 750
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Ku. Rashmi Mishra—Appellant
versus
Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4559 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26013-26014 of 2004)
Decided on 19-10-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate, Prakash Shrivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondents : S.K. Gambhir, Sr. Advocate, M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy and Harshvardhan Jha, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
A statutory rule governing selection process for a post must not only be in consonance with legislative intent but must satisfy the constitutional requirements contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:Madhya Pradesh State University Service Rules, 1982—Rules 5 and 8(ii)—Method of recruitment and conditions of eligibility of direct recruits—Selection of Assistant Registrars, Class II gazetted post—Respondent Commission conducted a preliminary examination and short listed 55 candidates for 17 posts—Interviews were held and 17 candidates were selected only on basis of interview marks ignoring performance in written examination—Appellant who qualified in written test but was not finally selected challenged the selection process and filed writ in High Court levelling charges of favouritism and nepotism in respect of two selected candidates respondents 3 and 4—High Court dismissed writ—Appeal—Contention regarding favouritism and nepotism allegedly shown by Selection Committee in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had not been pressed—All seventeen candidates were necessary parties in writ—Validity of 1982 Rules was not questioned in writ petition and Rules could not be declared ultra vires—Rules though apparently did not satisfy the requirements of law—Statutory rule must not only be in consonance with legislative intent but must satisfy constitutional requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India—State Govt. to consider desirability of amending the Rules suitably—No relief could be granted to appellant as all selected candidates were not impleaded as parties in writ petition.

       Held : The High Court did not go into the question as to whether any favoritism or nepotism had been shown in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 by the members of the Selection Committee. Notices having been issued and the respondents having filed their responses before the High Court, we may presume that the contention in regard to favoritism or nepotism allegedly shown by the Selection Committee in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 had not been pressed. In the aforementioned situation, all the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in the writ petition. The number of selected candidates was not large. There was no difficulty for Appellant to implead them as parties in the said proceeding. The result of the writ petition could have affected the appointees. They were, thus, necessary and/or in any event proper parties. (Paras 12 and 13)

       Furthermore, the validity of 1982 Rules was not in question in the writ petition. What was in question was only the selection process. In the absence of any prayer made in the writ petition in that behalf and/or grounds for such a declaration having not been set out, evidently the High Court could not have gone thereinto. We are, therefore, are not in a position to declare the said Rules as ultra vires as was urged by Mr. Sanyal. We, however, cannot refrain ourselves from observing that the said Rules apparently do not satisfy the requirements of the law as laid down by this Court. Interview, indisputably, is one of the relevant factors for selection. This Court, however, had noticed that nepotism or favoritism in making selection cannot be ruled out and as such, categorically laid down that a low percentage of the total marks only should be fixed for interview.(Para 16)

       A statutory rule, it is trite, must not only be, in consonance with the legislative intent, but also must satisfy the constitutional requirements contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Our Constitution professes equality. Equality clauses contained in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are heart and soul of our Constitution. A constitutional authority, although, would be presumed to act fairly, this Court, while laying down the norms on which such statutory authorities must function keeping in view the possibility of showing nepotism or favoritism in favour of one candidate or the other, laid down the same having regard to the doctrine of reasonableness and with a view to refrain the constitutional and statutory authorities from acting arbitrarily. The sole purpose of issuing such directions by this Court had been to uphold the doctrine of equality enshrined in our Constitution.(Para 26)

       It is not that the Commission was not called upon the hold a written examination. The Rules enabled the Commission to do so. Such a written examination in fact was held. However, the same was held only for the purpose of short-listing the candidates and not for any other purpose. It was not a fair exercise of power. The marks obtained by the candidates in the said written examination should have been taken into consideration. Evidently, the Commission did not do so. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we would direct the State of Madhya Pradesh therefor to consider the desirability of amending the Rules suitably so that such charges of favoritism or nepotism by the members of the constitutional authority in future is not called in question.(Para 27)

       In the instant case, however, as all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties in the writ petition, no relief can be granted to the appellant.(Para 29)