S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar
Sadananda Halo & Others - PETITIONER
Versus
Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others - RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 1609 of 2008
CIVIL APPEAL No 1609 OF 2008
Arising out of SLP (C) No.3536 of 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1614 OF 2008
Arising out of SLP (C) No.6576 of 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1615 OF 2008
Arising out of SLP (C) No.6581 of 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1610-1613 OF 2008
Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.17219-17222 of 2007
Decided On: 27/02/2008
Civil Procedure Code , Order 1- Rule 10 - Rule 7 – Constitution of India - Article 226 - A large number of petitioners have filed above sets of Special Leave Petitions challenging therein a common judgment of Guwahati High Court disposing of as many as 54 Writ Appeals which were filed against judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of that High Court disposing of as many as 222 Writ Petitions - All those 222 Writ Petitions were disposed of by learned Single Judge by a common judgment - Writ petitions pertained to selections in a selection process for 5500 posts of Armed Constables which was initiated by advertisements - This advertisement was based on separately identified vacancies for each Armed Police Battalion having its permanent headquarters in a District - Recruitment was to be held in 25 different centres covering each District of State of Assam for vacancies identified separately for that district. As many as 2 lakh candidates took part in recruitment process – Held , Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder - They may be implied from nature of duty to be performed under a statute - What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on facts and circumstances of that case, framework of statute under which enquiry is held - Old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away - Adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance - Division Bench thus could not have condoned non supply of copy of writ petitions prior to hearing of writ petitions before learned Single Judge - Similarly, after having noticed that notice issued by learned Single Judge was vague and that impleaded selected candidates were constantly crying for copies of writ petitions, Division Bench could not have simply brushed aside those weighty objections - Court also do not understand alleged stand taken by counsel for selected candidates before Division Bench regarding their readiness to argue - It is for this reason that Court have extensively quoted arguments by counsel of this judgment where non supply of copies of petitions was criticized – Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT:
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. -- Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.3536/2007, 6576/2007, 6581/2007 and 17219-17222 of 2007.
2. The present Judgment shall dispose of all the above mentioned Special Leave Petitions.
3. A large number of petitioners have filed the above sets of Special Leave Petitions challenging therein a common judgment of the Guwahati High Court disposing of as many as 54 Writ Appeals which were filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of that High Court disposing of as many as 222 Writ Petitions. All those 222 Writ Petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment. The writ petitions pertained to the selections in a selection process for the 5500 posts of Armed Constables which was initiated by advertisements dated 21.8.2004. This advertisement was based on the separately identified vacancies for each Armed Police Battalion having its permanent headquarters in a District. The recruitment was to be held in 25 different centres covering each District of State of Assam for the vacancies identified separately for that district. As many as 2 lakh candidates took part in the recruitment process which commenced on 3rd December, 2004 and lasted upto 11th December, 2004.
4. On completion of the recruitment drive, separate select-lists for each District for the Armed Police Battalion located in the District and the District Executive Force were prepared. These select-lists were challenged in the above mentioned 222 writ petitions by nearly 3000 unsuccessful aspirants. Later on more than 1000 selected candidates also got themselves impleaded in the writ petitions. Initially the court sought for the records of the selection process and ordered the same to be kept in safe custody of the Registry of the court. This was done since the apprehensions were expressed by the Writ Petitioners that there may be tampering of records. A scrutiny of these records was got done by the learned Single Judge through three Judicial Officers who were appointed for that purpose. A sample survey of the records of the selected/unsuccessful candidates was done by the three Judicial officers. While going through the records, the learned Single Judge considered the same District-wise and ultimately upheld the selections in respect of 10 Districts while the selections as well as the selection process in the other Districts were set aside and quashed. This gave rise to the Writ Appeals both by the State as also by the selected candidates. The appeals, therefore, came to be filed in respect of the following Districts and Battalions:
1) Dhubri
2) Karimganj
3) Hailakandi
4) Cachar
5) Sibsagar
6) Jorhat
7) Nagaon
8) Darang
9) Sonitpur
10) Goalpara
11) Morigaon
12) Barpeta
13) 4th APBN, GRP, CID, SB & ACB
14) Commando BN & Kamrup DEF
15) 10th APBN
The Division Bench allowed the appeals pertaining to (i) Karimganj District, (ii) Hailakandi District, (iii) Commando Battalion & Kamrup DEF; and (iv) 10th AP Battalion. The appeals pertaining to the rest of the Districts/Battalions were dismissed. As such the selections made in those Districts/Battalions were also set aside as was done by the learned Single Judge. In the present Civil Appeals before us we are concerned with the selections of only three Districts, they are: (i) Dhubri, (ii) Barpeta; and (iii) Sonitpur. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.3536/2007 pertains to Dhubri District, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.6581 and SLP (C) Nos.17219-17222 of 2007 pertain to Barpeta District while Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) 6576 of 2007 pertains to Sonitpur District. We will, therefore, be limiting ourselves only in so far as those Districts are concerned.
5. As has been stated earlier, there were advertisements dated
Raj Kumar and Ors. v. Shakti Raj and Ors.
All India SC and ST Employees Association and Another v. A. Arthur Jeen and Others 2001 5 JT 42
Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P.
Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors.
Satpal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana
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.