2020 Supreme(SC) 297

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha, JJ.
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS.– APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS.– RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2103 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35373 of 2013) Civil Appeal No.2104 of 2020[@ SLP(C)No.35471/2013], Civil Appeal No.2105 of 2020[@ SLP(C)No.35466/2013], Civil Appeal No.2107 of 2020[@ SLP(C)No.35857/2013], Civil Appeal No.2106 of 2020[@SLP(C)No.35811/2013], Civil Appeal No.2108 of 2020[@ SLP(C)No.39466/2013], Civil Appeal Nos.2164-2166 of 2020 [@SLP(C)Nos.5275-5277/2014], Civil Appeal Nos.2168-2169 of 2020 [@SLP(C)Nos.12403-12404/2014], and Civil Appeal No.2167 of 2020[@ SLP(C)No.10647/2014]
Decided on : 08-04-2020

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) When candidate is not aware of criteria of selection under which he was subjected in the process and said criteria for first time is published along with final result, he cannot be estopped from challenging criteria of selection and entire process of selection.
(2) When continuance of a person on a post is by virtue of an interim order, continuance is always subject to outcome of litigation.
(3) When alteration of criteria has been made, which has obviously affected merit selection, allegations which have been made in writ petition against Commission in conducting selection are allegations of malice-in-law and not malice-in-fact.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Estoppel – Reversal of selection made on post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) – Selection on various posts was to be conducted as per criteria fixed by Commission – There are no separate statutory rules providing for criteria for recruitment for different posts including post of PTI – Power is vested in Commission to fix criteria for selection – When Commission had not published any criteria on the basis of which candidates were going to be subjected for selection process and candidates participated in selection without knowing criteria of selection, they cannot be shut out from challenging process of selection when ultimately they came to know that Commission step by step has diluted merit in selection – When candidate is not aware of criteria of selection under which he was subjected in the process and said criteria for first time is published along with final result, he cannot be estopped from challenging criteria of selection and entire process of selection – Further, when written examination as notified earlier was scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for interview giving a go bye to a fair and reasonable process for shortlisting candidates for interview, that too only by Chairman of Commission whereas decision regarding criteria of selection has to be taken by Commission, candidates have every right to challenge entire selection process so conducted – When glaring illegalities have been committed in procedure to get candidates for examination, principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application. (Paras 34, 35, 39 and 41)

(B) Service Law – Selection – Reversal of selection made on post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) – Selection and appointment on post in State have to conform to fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Articles 14 and 16 – Objective of a State in selecting persons into public service has always been to select the best and most suitable person – Standard on which candidates are to be screened for selection was downgraded by Chairman of his own – When number of candidates who applied against certain posts are enormously large, short-listing has always been treated as an accepted mode to correctly value work and merit of candidate – Present is a case where change in criteria has been affected and altered arbitrarily with object of down-grading and not up-grading standards of selection – High Court did not commit any error in not upholding change of criteria effected after start of selection process – Statutory notifications when entrust Commission to devise mode of selection and fix criteria and Commission being multimember body, Chairman alone was not competent to alter mode of selection and criteria which was fixed and published for conducting selection for post of PTI – Change in criteria of selection was never notified by Commission and about change in process of selection candidates were kept in total dark – Petitioners cannot be estopped in challenging arbitrary criteria so applied – All candidates who had applied for post of PTI including those selected, ought to have been permitted to take written test – When continuance of a person on a post is by virtue of an interim order, continuance is always subject to outcome of litigation – Displacement of appellants from their posts is inevitable consequence of upholding of judgment of High Court – All applicants who had submitted applications in response to advertisement including those who were selected shall be permitted to participate in fresh selection. (Paras 42, 45, 46, 48, 51, 57, 73, 74 and 75)

(C) Service Law – Selection – Malice – Malice in law is also mala fide exercise of power, exercise of statutory power for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended – In present case, power to device mode of selection and fix criteria for selection was entrusted on Commission to further object of selection on merit to fill up post in State in consonance with provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India – When alteration of criteria has been made, which has obviously affected merit selection, allegations which have been made in writ petition against Commission in conducting selection are allegations of malice-in-law and not malice-in-fact. (Para 62)

Facts of the Case:

These appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 30.09.2013 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing LPA filed by the appellants affirming the judgment of Single Judge dated 11.09.2012 by which the Selection dated 10.04.2010 selecting appellants on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) was set aside. All the appeals having been filed against the common judgment involving common facts and questions of law.

Findings of the Court:

Continuance of the appellants is only by way of interim order. This Court has also passed an order on 29.11.2013 for maintaining status quo, which order has been continued till this date. When the continuance of a person on a post is by virtue of an interim order, the continuance is always subject to outcome of the litigation. The displacement of appellants from their posts is inevitable consequence of upholding of the judgment of the High Court.

Result : Appeals disposed of.