Public Service Commision through Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission etc. vs Arvind Singh Chauhan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1501

2009(6) Supreme 416
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and H.L. Dattu, JJ.—
Public Service Commision through Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission etc. — Appellants
versus
Arvind Singh Chauhan and Ors. Etc. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5836-5837 of 2009
(Arising out of SL P(C) Nos. 20151-20152 of 2008)
Decided on : 28-08-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :S.K. Gambhir, Sr. Adv., M.P. Jha, Ram Ekbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Anil Mishra, B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law – Appellant Public Service Commission issued two advertisements inviting applications from eligible and qualified persons for State Service Examination 2001 – In the notification issued on 01.11.2001 it was clearly mentioned that age limit for appearing in the Preliminary Examination shall be 30 years relaxable by three years as on 1.1.2002 and subsequently on 9.10.2003, another advertisement was issued where the age limit had been prescribed as 30 years relaxable by five years as on 1.1.2004- Respondents appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by appellant – They were declared passed in the said preliminary examination and were allotted roll numbers for appearing in the final examination which was to be conducted in May-June 2006 – However, respondents were not permitted by appellant – Com mission from appearing in the Viva-voce test/finalexamination on the ground that they were over aged – Case of Public Service Co m mission that age of the candidates ought to have been 33 as on 1.1.2002, and 35 as on 1.1.2004, to be eligible to participate in the examination and since, none of the writ petitioners fulfilled the age criteria final results of the petitioners had not been declared – Challenge thereagainst-Perusal of clauses in the advertisement showed the fact that even if respondents had passed preliminary examination did not mean that their application/candidature was valid – The Co m mission was fully authorized to cancel the candidature of the candidates at any stage without prior intimation- Wordings of advertisement clearly specified that benefit was available to only those who had “appeared” for the 2001 examination and not to those who were “entitled to apply” for 2001 examination – High Court erred in considering M arch 31, 2003 as a cut off date for eligibility as there was no explicit mention of the same in the circular – Held age relaxation being the discretion of the state looking at the problems of unemployment and regarding the authority of the Co m mission to question the concession in age requirements, it has been made clear already that the Co m mission was not trying to question age relaxation – The Co m mission was merely trying to enforce the age requirements prescribed by State Government – On account of no record of any concession made on the part of the appellants and considering all the circumstances of the case, it was clear that respondents were over aged on the specified cut-off dates which made their application liable for cancellation – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Appeals allowed. (Paras 15 to 21)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. Appellant Public Service Commission issued two advertisements inviting applications from eligible and qualified persons for State Service Examination 2001 herein in the instant case. In the notification issued on 01.11.2001 it was clearly mentioned that age limit for appearing in the Preliminary Examination shall be 30 years relaxable by three years as on 1.1.2002 and subsequently on 9.10.2003, another advertisement was issued where the age limit had been prescribed as 30 years relaxable by five years as on 1.1.2004. Respondents appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by appellant. They were declared passed in the said preliminary examination and were allotted roll numbers for appearing in the final examination which was to be conducted in M ay-June 2006. However, respondents were not permitted by appellant- Com mission from appearing in the Viva-voce test/final examination on the ground that they were over aged. Case of Public Service Commission that age of the candidates ought to have been 33 as on 1.1.2002, and 35 as on 1.1.2004, to be eligible to participate in the examination and since , none of the writ petitioners fulfilled the age criteria final results of the petitioners had not been declared.
        2. Issue in consideration in present case was regarding validity of appellant Commission in not permitting respondent from appearing in the Viva-voce test/final examination on the ground that they were over aged.
       Findings of the Court :
        Perusal of clauses in the advertisement showed the fact that even if respondents had passed preliminary examination did not mean that their application/candidature was valid. The Commission was fully authorized to cancel the candidature of the candidates at any stage without prior intimation. Wordings of advertisement clearly specified that benefit was available to only those who had “appeared” for the 2001 examination and not to those who were “entitled to apply” for 2001 examination. High Court erred in considering M arch 31, 2003 as a cut off date for eligibility as there was no explicit mention of the same in the circular. Held age relaxation being the discretion of the state looking at the problems of unemployment and regarding the authority of the Co m mission to question the concession in age requirements, it has been made clear already that the Co m mission was not trying to question age relaxation. The Co m mission was merely trying to enforce the age requirements prescribed by State Government.On account of no record of any concession made on the part of the appellants and considering all the circumstances of the case, held clear that respondents were over aged on the specified cut-off dates which made their application liable for cancellation. Impugned order of High was set aside.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu,J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of M.P., Jabalpur Bench at G walior in W. A. No.259 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007.

3. The facts in brief are:- The appellant - Public Service Co m mission had issued two advertisements inviting applications from eligibleand qualified persons for State Service Exa mination 2001. In the notification issued on 01.11.2001 itwas clearly mentioned that the age limitfor appearing in the Preliminary Exa mination shallbe 30 years relaxable by three years as on 1.1.2002 and subsequently on 9.10.2003, another advertisement was issued where the age limit has been prescribed as 30 years relaxable by five years as on 1.1.2004.

4. The respondents (Arvind Singh Chauhan and others) appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the appellant. They were declared passed in the said preliminary examination and were allotted roll numbers for appearing in the final examination which was to be conducted in M ay-June 2006. Ho wever, the respondents were not permitted by the appellant- m mission from appearing in the Viva-voce Co test/finalexamination on the ground thatthey were over aged.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the appellant,the respondents filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of M.P Bench at G walior, inter alia requesting the Court to direct the Public Service Co m mission not to exclude the respondents and other similarly situated candidates from participating in the viva-voce test/finalexamination and for other ancillaryreliefs.

6. The main contention of the writ petitioners/respondents before the Learned Single Judge was that as per the advertisement issued in 2001 they were eligible to appear in examination as they were below 33 years as on 1.1.2002. The petitioners had further contended thatanother advertisement was issued in the year 2003 and as per Clause 10 of that advertisement, those who were eligible to appear in the examination of 2001, shall also be eligible to appear in the later examination. Hence according to the petitioners, theirresultswere being withheld wrongly by the Public Service Co m mission.

7. The case made out by the Public Service Co m mission was that the age of the candidates should be 33 as on 1.1.2002, and 35 as on 1.1.2004, to be eligible to participate in the examination and according to them, none of the writ petitioners fulfilled the age criteria and therefore the finalresultsof the petitionershave not been declared.

8. The Learned Single Judge afterperusal of the records has come to the conclusion that no detailsnor any docu ment was filed by the writ petitioners to prove that in pursuance to the earlieradvertisement issued in the year 2001 by Public Service Co m mission, they had submitted their applications. The Court while holding that the writ petitioners are not entitled for any relief,has relied on the observation made by this Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P Public Service Commission1 [(2006) 9 SCC 507]. In thatcase this Court has observed, that recruitment to service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error,if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The Learned Judge has also relied upon Clause 25 of the advertisement issued in the year 2003, going by which, the Co m mission is fully empo wered to cancel selection of the candidates at any stage without giving any prior information to the candidates.Itwas also observed, that, considering the volume of applications it is practically impossible to scrutinize each and every line of the form and merely because appellants were permitted to appear in the preliminary examination, they cannot claim to permit them to appear in viva voce test/final examination. The Learned Judge is also of the view that the case referred to by the counsel f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1501

Cases Referred (1)