Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 47

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
RAKESH BAKSHI & ANR. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 235-236 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.7843-7844 of 2014)
WITH
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
HARVINDER SINGH & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C)No.14660 of 2014)
Decided On : 22-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. V.K. Jhansi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Manjula Gupta, AOR Mr. G.M. Kawoosa, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if the appointment was not proper, after 18 years of service it will not be justified to unseat the appellant more so the petitioner stands to gain nothing.

Headnote:Service law – Selection – Candidate must possess requisite qualifications on cutoff date – Instantly appellant’s result was declared after cutoff date – Present petitioner not having qualifying marks, could not possibly secure selection – Appellants in the meantime serving for 18 years – Petitioner not stand to gain even if appellants are unseated – Impugned judgment unsettling appellants set aside. (Para 13)
       (1997) 4 SCC 18 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The Services Selection Board of the State issued an advertisement on 01.07.1997 inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineers (Elect) Grade II. The last date fixed was 31.07.1997 for receipt of applications through registered post. It is also provided that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility is 31.07.1997.
       The Diploma examination of the appellants, though held in 1996, result was declared on 12.10.1997 as against the cut-off date of 31.07.1997.
       As far as the first appellant i.e. Rakesh Bakshi is concerned, the Board itself considered him eligible, as the result was declared before holding of the interview. In regard to the second appellant, he was removed from the interview list. This led to the filing of a writ petition by the second appellant. The High Court took the view that if the Board has interpreted the eligibility clause in a particular manner in the case of first appellant who had cleared examination along with the second appellant, there is no justification to give different interpretation. In the case of second appellant, the petition was allowed and the second appellant was found entitled to the same benefit as given to the first appellant. A writ petition was filed challenging the appellant’s appointment on the same ground. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. This Judgment, however, came to be set aside by the Division Bench and the appointment of the appellants was set aside. Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench. The judgment of the Single Judge came to be restored.
       The present appeal arises from a writ petition filed by another person, namely, party-respondent in these appeals Shri Harvinder Singh. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition but the Division Bench allowed the writ petition reasoning that the result of the examination of the appellants was declared only after the last date of receipt of applications.
       Finding of the Court:
       After 18 years of service it will not be justified to unseat the appellant more so the petitioner stands to gain nothing.
       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Civil appeals (@ SLP(C) Nos.7843-7844 of 2014) by Special Leave are filed against the judgment of the High court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 04.03.2014 by which it set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and set aside the selection and appointment of the appellants as Junior Engineers. Civil appeal @ SLP(C)No.14660 of 2014 is filed by the State of Jammu & Kashmir against the impugned judgment.

3. The Services Selection Board of the State issued an advertisement on 01.07.1997 inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineers (Elect) Grade II. The last date fixed was 31.07.1997 for receipt of applications through registered post. It is also provided that the cut-off date for determining the eligibility is 31.07.1997. It is, accordingly, that party respondent No.3 hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner filed SWP No.2186 of 2001 before the Court. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the petition but the Division Bench reversed the dismissal of the petition and set aside the judgment of the Single Judge. The selection and the appointment of the appellants in these appeals arising out of the Special Leave Petition Nos.7843-7844 of 2014, came to be set aside.

4. The short ground on which the Division Bench set aside the appointment is that the result of the examination was declared only after the cut-off date and they were not found eligible.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants whose appointment stand interfered with made the following submissions. The academic session in which they studied for the Diploma Course was from 1993 to 1996 and there was some problem about the institution. The examination, though, it was in 1996, result came to be declared on 12.10.1997. There is no dispute that the last date for receipt of applications was 31.07.1997. As far as the first appellant i.e. Rakesh Bakshi is concerned, the Board itself considered him eligible, as the result, was before holding of the interview. In regard to the second appellant, he was removed from the interview list. This led to the filing of a writ petition by the second appellant. The High Court took the view that if the Board has interpreted the eligibility clause in a particular manner in the case of first appellant who had cleared examination along with the second appellant, there is no justification to give different interpretation. In the case of second appellant, the petition was allowed and the second appellant was found entitled to the same benefit as given to the first appellant. A writ petition was filed challenging the appellant’s appointment on the same ground. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. This Judgment, however, came to be set aside by the Division Bench and the appointment of the appellants was set aside. The matter travelled to this Court and this Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench. The judgment of the Single Judge came to be restored. The present appeal arises from a writ petition filed by another person, namely, party-respondent in these appeals Shri Harvinder Singh. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition but as noticed the Division Bench allowed the writ petition reasoning that the result of the examination of the appellants was declared only after the last date of receipt of applications.

7. The Learned Senior Counsel would point out that the appellants have continued to work for long years and would further point out that the writ petitioner in this case did not secure sufficient marks so that he is not going to get any relief after setting aside the appointment of the appellants. He drew our attention to the order passed by this Court dated 14.03.2014. It reads as follows:-

“Taken on Board.
Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that without disturbing respondent No.3, the claim of the petitioners be considered since the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 47

IMPORTANT POINTEven if the appointment was not proper, after 18 years of service it will not be justified to unseat the appellant more so the petitioner stands to gain nothing.

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if the appointment was not proper, after 18 years of service it will not be justified to unseat the appellant more so the petitioner stands to gain nothing.