Secretary vs A. B. Natarajan - 2014 Supreme(SC) 1031

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(SC) 1031

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Secretary – Appellant
Vs.
A.B. Natarajan – Respondent
C.A. Nos. 5877-78 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8980-8981 of 2011), C.A. Nos. 5880-81 of 2014. (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26143-26144 of 2011), C.A. Nos. 5882-83 of 2014. (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 26145-26146 of 2011), C.A. No. 5884 of 2014. (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26597 of 2012) and C.A. No. 5879 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9225 of 2011)
Decided On : 30.06.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K. Parasaran, Rakesh Dwivedi and P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., V. Balachandran, Subramonium Prasad, M. Yogesh Kanna, Niraimati, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Jayanth Muth Raj, Malavika J. andSureshan P., Advs.
For the Respondents: A. Mariarputham and B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Advs., T. Anamika, B.V. Chandan, N. Subramanyan,A. Chandramohan, Subramonium Prasad, B. Balaji R. Rakesh Sharma, Meha and C.K. Sasi, Advs.

Headnote:
Retired from Service – Public Service Commission – Challenging their appointment - Declared qualified in preliminary examination - Candidates who had been declared qualified in preliminary examination were asked to appear in main written examination. Subsequently oral interviews had been conducted of candidates who were selected in main examination and thereafter a final select list had been prepared by Commission – Held, Candidates who had applied for Class-I post if selected were to be Class-I Officers of the State of Tamil Nadu - Not following the instructions given to them while appearing in examination, which had been conducted for their selection would either mean that they were so careless that they did not read or bother about instructions to be followed or they wanted to give some indication to examiner about their identity - In either case such a candidate cannot be selected - A candidate who is so careless that does not bother about his own interest cannot be expected to become a good officer - Interest of candidate is to get through examination and for that purpose he has to follow instructions - By not following instructions he does not take care of his own interest – So if he has written the answer books carelessly without bothering about instructions given to him he is a careless person who must not be appointed as an officer and if he has done it deliberately then also he should not be appointed as an officer because one who plans such illegalities even before joining his service, cannot be expected to become a fair and straightforward officer - So in either case such a candidate cannot be selected for appointment as an officer and that took a Class-I Officer of any State Several allegations had been made with regard to the procedural aspect - It had been submitted that all the selected candidates had not been joined as Respondents and even the State of Tamil Nadu had not been joined as a Respondent initially - Initially only one petition had been filed when result had not been declared and it was also not possible for Petitioners to join all selected candidates - Subsequently an advertisement had been given in newspapers giving indication about pendency of the petition so as to enable selected candidates to appear before Court – Moreover appointment letters gave an indication of fact that a litigation challenging their appointment was pending in High Court For reasons recorded hereinabove court are of view that Division Bench of High Court was justified in delivering impugned common judgment - Law propounded in judgments referred to by counsel for Appellants cannot be disputed, but looking at facts of instant case court are of view that said judgments would be of no help to them - In circumstances appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs– Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Leave granted. As all these appeals have been filed against a common judgment dated 4th March, 2011, delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 1063 and 1287 of 2009, they have been heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as follows.

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') had issued an advertisement on 27thDecember, 2000, inviting applications for 95 posts for Group I Services. Subsequently, the vacancies had been decreased and it was notified that in all 91 vacancies had to be filled up.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, several candidates had submitted their applications and ultimately they had also appeared in the preliminary examination. The candidates who had been declared qualified in the preliminary examination were asked to appear in the main written examination. Subsequently, oral interviews had been conducted of the candidates who were selected in the main examination and thereafter a final select list had been prepared by the Commission.

4. Writ petitions had been filed in the Madras High Court contending that the scaling technique was not properly applied by the Commission and certain irregularities had been committed in the examination. There were amendments in the petitions and subsequently it was also alleged that there were some malpractices and a prayer was made to the effect that the Central Bureau of Investigation should be directed to look into the matter.

5. When the petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, an advocate was appointed as the Court Commissioner to look into the alleged irregularities and in pursuance thereof a report had been submitted by the learned advocate. Once again, another advocate was appointed as the Court Commissioner to look into the allegations and inspect the answer books to find out whether the instructions given to the candidates had been strictly adhered to while answering the question papers. A report was also submitted by the other learned advocate. Both the reports had been considered by the learned Single Judge and ultimately the learned Single Judge had dismissed the petitions. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the petitions, appeals had been filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, which had been heard at length. After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals had been allowed by a common judgment, which has been challenged in these appeals.

6. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that there were material irregularities committed by the candidates while answering the questions. Several instructions given to the candidates had been grossly violated by the candidates. Details with regard to the irregularities committed by the candidates, which could have resulted into malpractices, have been detailed by the appellate Court in the impugned judgment.

7. Upon perusal of the judgment it is clear that most of the candidates had not adhered to the instructions given to them, which were to be followed while answering the questions. The candidates had made several unwarranted indications or markings in their answer books, which ought not to have been made by them. Though use of coloured pens had been prohibited, several candidates had used colours other than blue, blue-black and black, which were the only permissible colours. Use of pencil was not permitted and yet pencil markings were made by several candidates, Several candidates had given different indications by putting certain religious symbols. Moreover, certain pages of answer books were deliberately kept blank though they were supposed to write on each page. All these indications given by the candidates, which were not called for, were considered very seriously by the Division Bench of the High Court and after referring to all these irregularities, the Division Bench ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document