2020 Supreme(SC) 367

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO (S). 2414 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 23202-23204 OF 2015) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2419 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 29764-29765 OF 2015) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). __ OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30109 OF 2016)
Decided On : 06-05-2020

IMPORTANT POINT
Scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates, particularly, for purpose of recruitment to public services is narrow.

Headnote:

Service Law – Selection – Scope of judicial review – Scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates, particularly, for purpose of recruitment to public services is narrow – In absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review should be rarely exercised, preferably under exceptional circumstances – Unilateral exercise of re-valuation undertaken by High Court (both by single judge and Division Bench) has not solved, but rather contributed to chaos – BSSC, in acted correctly in first instance, in referring answers to a panel of experts – If there were justifiable doubts about recommendations of that panel, least that should have been done, was to require BSSC to refer disputed or doubtful questions to another expert panel – That was not done; corrections indicated by single judge were accepted by BSSC; several candidates who made it to select list freshly drawn up pursuant to his directions, were appointed – Division Bench, thereafter undertook entire exercise afresh, compounding the matter further by not referring disputed questions to any panel of experts – BSSC directed to evaluate and publish results afresh, in light of recommendations and report of experts (constituted by this court) subject to care being taken by the BSSC and Govt. of Bihar, not to disturb appointments made previously pursuant to directions of single judge – In case number of selected candidates (on the basis of revised result) exceeds vacancies available as on last date indicated for consideration (in concerned recruitment or recruitments), State of Bihar would accommodate excess numbers in relevant cadres as against future vacancies arising till 31.12.2019 – This court is hereby making these directions to put a quietus on the dispute, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India – Impugned judgment of Patna High Court, as well as judgment of single judge hereby set aside. [Constitution of India – Articles 142 and 226] (Paras 19, 20, 22, 24 and 25)

Facts of the Case:

One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/2015) has been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereafter “BSSC”) and the other set by several aggrieved parties, who were appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court, in four intra-court appeals, which had questioned the judgment and order of a learned single judge. The single judge set aside the results of the main examination, with consequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results of the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010, in accordance with the directions of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questions and answers as stipulated in the judgment. The aggrieved party appellants were not party to the writ proceedings, but had been declared selected in terms of the results first published, and subsequently were shown as not qualified under the revised results pursuant to the directions of the Court by the learned single judge. Three appeals to the Division Bench were by candidates who were writ petitioners and had impugned the judgment of the single judge in not granting them full relief in respect of all questions that were challenged. These parties were not selected in the final results declared.

Findings of the Court:

Unilateral exercise of re-valuation undertaken by the High Court (both by the single judge and the Division Bench) has not solved, but rather contributed to the chaos. No rule or regulation was shown by any party during the hearing, which justified the approach that was adopted. The BSSC, in our opinion, acted correctly in the first instance, in referring the answers to a panel of experts.

Result : Appeals disposed of with observations.