Vikas Pratap Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(SC) 616

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. DATTU AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. - Respondents
WITH
Rajendra Singh Kanwar and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. - Respondents
AND
Rajendra Singh Kanwar and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Rahul Bhagat and Ors. - Respondents/Contemnors
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5318-5319 OF 2013 (@ S.L.P.(C) Nos.26341-26342 of 2011)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5320 OF 2013 (@ S.L.P.(C) No. 26349 OF 2011)
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 433 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5320 OF 2013 (@ S.L.P.(C) No. 26349 OF 2011)
Decided on: 09-07-2013

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Re-evaluation scheme - Cancellation of appointment - Batch of appeals are directed against common judgment and order passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh in Petition and where under High Court has Petitions filed by appellants herein and confirmed revised merit list drawn after selective re evaluation of answer scripts of all candidates who had appeared in Main Examination for posts of Platoon Commanders and Sub Inspectors in respondent State of Chhattisgarh - Appellants before candidates aggrieved by cancellation of first merit list and of second revised merit list by Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board where by their appointments to aforesaid posts have been cancelled – Held, Respondent Board in matter of evaluation of answer scripts could not be attributed to appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua first merit list nor has preparation of erroneous model answer key or specious result contributed to them - Had contrary been case it would have justified their ouster upon re evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from Court irrespective of their length of service - Appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon economic security of appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers - This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of answer scripts - Continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to appellants nor cause undue prejudice to candidates selected qua revised merit list – Court direct respondent-State to appoint appellants in revised merit list placing them at bottom of said list - Candidates who have crossed minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation – Petition dismissed

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a dispute over the re-evaluation of answer scripts and the cancellation of appointments of certain candidates who appeared for recruitment examinations for posts in the respondent State of Chhattisgarh (!) (!) .
The initial merit list was drawn after the main examination, and appointments were issued to the selected candidates, including the appellants (!) (!) .
Subsequently, complaints about defects in some examination questions prompted the respondent-Board to form an expert committee, which identified errors in certain questions and model answers (!) (!) .
The respondent-Board re-evaluated answer scripts based on corrected questions and revised model answers, resulting in the cancellation of the original merit list and the issuance of a revised list that excluded the appellants (!) (!) .
The appellants challenged the validity of the re-evaluation process and the revised merit list through writ petitions, which were dismissed by the High Court, affirming the validity of the re-evaluation and the cancellation of their appointments (!) (!) (!) .
The Court examined whether the respondent-Board had the authority to re-evaluate answer scripts after the initial appointment, especially in the absence of specific statutory provisions for such re-evaluation based on errors in model answers or questions (!) (!) .
It was clarified that the rules explicitly provide procedures for handling defective questions but do not extend to errors in model answers or evaluation criteria, and re-evaluation was justified only for questions found to be inherently defective (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the respondent-Board, as an independent body, has the authority to ensure fair and accurate evaluation, including re-evaluation in case irregularities are discovered, provided it is done within the scope of applicable rules (!) (!) .
The Court concluded that the re-evaluation process was carried out properly and did not cause prejudice to the appellants, who had neither been involved in any misconduct nor had their rights violated in a manner that would warrant setting aside the revised merit list (!) .
The appellants, having undergone training and served for over three years, should not be ousted from service based solely on the cancellation of their initial appointments, especially considering their reliance on the original appointment and the potential hardship caused (!) (!) .
The Court directed that the appellants be appointed anew in the revised merit list, placed at the bottom, with suitable age relaxations for those who have crossed the statutory age limit, and clarified that this would constitute a fresh appointment without entitling them to back wages or seniority (!) .
The order of the High Court was modified accordingly, and the appeals were disposed of, with no costs awarded (!) .
The contempt petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the implementation of the Court's order (!) .

These points encapsulate the core legal and factual aspects of the case as presented in the document.

ORDER

Civil Appeal Nos.5318-5319 of 2013 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 26341-26342 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No.5320 of 2013 (@S.L.P. (C) No. 26349 of 2011)

H.L. Dattu, J.

1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. These batch of appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition Nos. 3087, 3204 and 4229 of 2009, dated 06.09.2011, whereby and whereunder the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the revised merit list drawn after the selective re-evaluation of the answer scripts of all the candidates who had appeared in the Main Examination for the posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Sub-Inspectors in the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh.

3. The appellants before us (in SLP (C) Nos. 26341-26342 of 2011 and 26349 of 2011) are the 26 candidates aggrieved by the cancellation of the first merit list and the redrawal of the second revised merit list by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (for short “respondent-Board”), whereby their appointments to the aforesaid posts have been cancelled.

4. The facts in a nutshell are as under:

On 18.09.2006, an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to 380 posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Sub- Inspectors in the respondent-State was issued by the Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh. For the said purpose, the Preliminary Examination was conducted on 24.12.2006 and the successful candidates thereat were called for the Main Examination held in two parts as Paper I and II on 04.02.2007 and 05.02.2007, respectively. After conducting physical examination and personal interviews, the final merit list of candidates was published on 08.04.2008, whereby all the appellants herein were selected. Based on the said merit list, the appointment letters were issued to the selected candidates including the appellants on various dates between 21.08.2008 and 15.09.2008. In the meanwhile, the Inspector General of Police and the respondent-Board received complaints in respect of defects/mistakes in several questions of the Main Examination Papers. The respondent-Board constituted an Expert Committee to inquire into the complaints. Upon examination of the two Papers, two sets of defects were noticed: (a) eight questions in Paper II itself were incorrect and (b) model answers for evaluation of answer scripts to another eight questions of Paper II were incorrect. The respondent-Board directed for deletion of the first set of eight questions in Paper II and preparation of correct model answers key for objective questions in Papers I and II and accordingly carried out re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidates. On 27.06.2009 a new revised merit list was published wherein the names of twenty six appellants did not figure at all and accordingly, the appointment of the appellants were cancelled by the respondent-State.

5. At the time of publication of the revised merit list, the appellants were already undergoing training along with other candidates who were selected in the first list. The appellants aggrieved by the cancellation of the aforesaid appointment in the wake of revised merit list filed several Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge inter alia challenging the validity of the revised merit list on the ground that decision of re-evaluation by the respondent-Board was arbitrary and irrational and therefore the said list requires to be quashed.

6. The learned Single Judge while entertaining the Writ Petitions had issued an interim order directing the respondent-State not to take any coercive steps against the appellants and further to allow them to continue their training programme. The learned Single Judge has observed that a substantial question of public importance has arisen in the matter and therefore, referred the matter to the Division Bench with a request to consider and decide the following question of law of public importance:

“Whether the VYAP

Click Here to Read the rest of this document