IMPORTANT POINT
If the selection is found to be tainted in any manner, it is always open to the concerned authority to annul such selection to maintain purity of the selection process.

Headnote:(a) Administrative law – Selection found to be tainted in any manner – Always open to concerned authority to annul such selection – Instantly such decision not patently arbitrary, mala fide or illegal – High Court rightly refusing to interfere with the decision to annul the selection. (Para 7)
       (b) Administration of justice – Matter not raised before High Court – Parties permitted to raise the issue by moving the High Court within two weeks – High Court may examine the application on merits. (Para 9)
       Facts of the case:
       The matter arises out of Selection conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission for filling up 362 posts of the Group 'A' and Group 'D' in the State of Karnataka. Examinations were conducted on 22.04.2012. Written tests for mains were conducted between 15.12.2012 and 16.01.2013. Interviews were held between 01-04-2013 and 27.05.2013.
       There were complaints of mal-practices and irregularities in the conduct of examinations as well as the interviews. On receipt of the interim report of CID dated 10th September, 2013, the State Government on 15th December, 2013 directed annulment of evaluation of written examination as well as the personality test. The KPSC however, published the select list. The State Government withdrew the requisition for appointments on 14.08.2014.
       The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal quashed the decision of the State Government and directed appointment of the selected candidates. Some selected candidates have been given appointments.
       The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal.
       Finding of the Court;
       Impugned judgment cannot be interfered with.
       Result: Appeals disposed of.

ORDER

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have entered appearance. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to all the parties who are not represented.

2. The matter arises out of Selection conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission ("KPSC") pursuant to Notification dated 3.11.2011 for filling up 362 posts of the Group 'A' and Group 'D' in the State of Karnataka. Examinations were conducted on 22.04.2012. Written tests for mains were conducted between 15.12.2012 and 16.01.2013. Interviews were held between 01-04-2013 and 27.05.2013.

3. There were complaints of mal-practices and irregularities in the conduct of examinations as well as the interviews. It was inter alia alleged that there were demands of bribes from candidates. The FIR was lodged against Chairman, Member and some officials of the KPSC. On receipt of the interim report of CID dated 10th September, 2013, the State Government on 15th December, 2013 directed annulment of evaluation of written examination as well as the personality test. The KPSC however, published the select list. The State Government withdrew the requisition for appointments on 14.08.2014.

4. The above order was challenged by the successful candidates before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 19th October, 2016 quashed the decision of the State Government and directed appointment of the selected candidates. Some selected candidates have been given appointments.

5. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of the Tribunal. The High Court concluded thus:

"55. Resultantly, these writ petitions eminently deserve to be allowed and accordingly:

a) Writ Petition Nos. 13617-13627/2017 & 14529/2017 and Writ Petition No. 11342/2017 are allowed;

b) Common order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Applications No. 6268/2014 to 6395/2014 c/w 6432/2014 to 6444/2014, 6446/2014 to 6459/2014, 6597/2014 & 6598/2014, 7464/2014, 7941/2014 to 7946/2014, 7950/2014 to 7966/2014, 7967/2014, 7968/2014, 7969/2014, 9112/2014 to 9126/2014, 9592/2014 to 9610/2014 and 8298/2015, is quashed.

c) Un-Official Note, Un-Official Note No. 139 CASu 139 SaLoSa 2016 dated 17.3.2017, issued by Deputy Secretary, DPAR Services, Government of Karnataka, is quashed;

d) Official Memorandum, Official Memorandum No. 19457 DMA 32 KaMAS 2016-17 dated 27.03.2017, issued by Director, Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, is quashed;

e) All orders of appointment/s issued pursuant to Final Select List dated 21.03.2014 prepared by KPSC are declared illegal and shall stand quashed; and

f) Government Order, Government Order No. CaaSuE 53 SaLoSa 2014, Bangalore dated 14.8.2014, withdrawing requisitions issued to KPSC for selection of Gazetted Probationers for 2011, and to close selection process, is sustained."

6. The High Court observed that appointment of ineligible, inefficient or persons of questionable integrity has serious adverse impact on the working of the Government and is anathema to the rule of law. Best selection to Government service was the mandate of the Constitution. No right accrued to candidates merely by being in the select list. Thus, the Tribunal was in error in directing appointment of persons validity of whose selection was seriously doubted by the Government.

7. We find that the High Court has referred to material on record in the form of call details between candidates and members of the KPSC. All the members who interviewed the candidates awarded exactly the same marks to particular candidates. There was no objective assessment by individual members. There appeared to be extraneous reasons in awarding the marks. 566 candidates were awarded same marks which appeared to be pre-determined. Digital video recorder in the KPSC building was replaced to destroy evidence. In this view of the matter, we do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 287

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.AVINASH C. & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)VERSUSSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 3543-3555 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 7166-7178 of 2018)Decided On : 04-04-2018

IMPORTANT POINTIf the selection is found to be tainted in any manner, it is always open to the concerned authority to annul such selection to maintain purity of the selection process.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
AVINASH C. & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 3543-3555 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 7166-7178 of 2018)
Decided On : 04-04-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
If the selection is found to be tainted in any manner, it is always open to the concerned authority to annul such selection to maintain purity of the selection process.