SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 783

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Barun Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 5812 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No(s).4310 of 2022) With Civil Appeal No(s). 5813 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No(s).4443 of 2022), Civil Appeal No(s).5814­5817 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No(s).5338­5341 of 2022), Civil Appeal No(s).5818 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No(s).5409 of 2022), Transfer Petition (C) No(s).1100 of 2022
Decided On : 25-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhishek R. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Md. Ali, AOR Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Mr. Brajesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anilendra Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal, SR. Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv. Mr. Samten D., Adv. Mr. Sourabh Tandon, Adv. Mr. Ritansh Vats, Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shubhashis R. Soren, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv. Mr. Vigyan Shah, Adv. Ms. Christi Jain, AOR Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Yogit Kamat, Adv. Mr. Akshit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Deshwal, Adv. Mr. Mann Arora, Adv. Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harendra Neel, Adv. Mr. Umang Mehta, Adv. Mr. Pukhraj Chawla, Adv. Mr. Yash Joshi, Adv. Ms. Shipra Singh, Adv. Mr. Saran Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pragya Seth, Adv. Ms. Keshika Jain, Adv. Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pragya Baghel, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Parth Shekhar, Adv. Mr. Gopal Shankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Agrawal, AOR Mr. Vigyan Shah, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Akshit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Radhika Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rajneesh Bhaskar, Adv. Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neelmani Pant, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Mehra, AOR Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mr. S. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Shanker Singh, Adv. Ms. Shreya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shonak Sharma, Adv. Ms. A. Walia, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Termination – Such of candidates who are working for sufficiently two years by this time and have completed their period of probation were not at fault at any point of time, cannot be shown the door.
(2) Punctuation marks by themselves do not control meaning of Statute when its meaning is otherwise obvious.


Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Termination – [Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 – Rule 17 – Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 – Rules 15, 16 and 17] – Cancellation of appointment after serving for two years – When one possible view has been acted upon by Commission and pursuant to which recommendations were made and after approval of State Government, candidates have been appointed and are working for almost 2 years by this time, it will be unjust for Supreme Court to now permit Government to take a U-Turn in compliance of impugned judgment and non-suit candidates who are working for sufficiently long time – Such of candidates who are working for sufficiently two years by this time and have completed their period of probation were not at fault at any point of time – Impugned judgment of High Court quashed and set aside. (Paras 44, 45 and 48)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Punctuation marks by themselves do not control meaning of Statute when its meaning is otherwise obvious – Ordinary rule is that punctuation mark is a minor element in interpretation of Statute, more so, when it is a case of subordinate legislation. (Para 46)

Facts of the case:

Present batch of appeals has been preferred by candidates who on qualifying the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016, conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission and having been appointed on the recommendations made by the Commission, completed their period of probation and got regular postings, their appointments have been cancelled initially by Single Judge by its judgment dated 7th June, 2021, which came to be affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court on dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal filed at the instance of the present appellants by judgment and order impugned dated 23rd February, 2022.

Findings of Court:

In the given circumstances, what has been observed by the High Court may be one of the propositions in interpreting clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement but what is being considered by the Commission in its right earnest also cannot be ruled out.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Rastogi, J.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).4310 OF 2022

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).4443 OF 2022

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) No(s).5338­5341 OF 2022

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).5409 OF 2022

1. Leave granted.

2. The present batch of appeals has been preferred by the candidates who on qualifying the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016, conducted by respondent no.3, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) and having been appointed on the recommendations made by the Commission, completed their period of probation and got regular postings, their appointments have been cancelled initially by the learned Single Judge by its judgment dated 7th June, 2021, which came to be affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court on dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal filed at the instance of the present appellants by judgment and order impugned dated 23rd February, 2022.

3. The facts in brief which may be relevant for the purpose, with the consent of parties have been noticed from Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4310 of 2022 (Barun Kumar & Ors. Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors.).

4. That in terms of the Bihar Re-Organisation Act, 2000, Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules 1951”) was adopted by the State of Jharkhand vide notification no.6184 dated 9th November, 2002 and accordingly, the State of Jharkhand held its Combined Civil Service Examination in terms of the Rules 1951.

5. That prior to the present selection process which came to be initiated by the Commission pursuant to Advertisement no.1/2015, the respondents held 5th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by the Commission pursuant to Advertisement no.6/2013 dated 7th July, 2013, there was a specific note in the advertisement that preliminary examination had two papers of 100 marks each and there shall be subject papers in the main examination and that the marks obtained in General Hindi will not be added in the marks obtained in the written examination and personality test, but the candidates who failed to secure 30 marks in compulsory General Hindi, will not be considered eligible for the written examination and accordingly Paper-I (General Hindi) was considered to be a qualifying test and before the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016 came to be notified, there was a series of meetings held by the Expert Committee for revision of the examination pattern for Combined Civil Services Examination chaired by Mr. V.S. Dubey, IAS (Retd.) and the Expert Committee, after examining the Pattern of Examination, made the recommendations,1[“65. Briefly speaking, the Expert Committee has the following recommendations to make :­

(a) All the optional papers, both at the level of the preliminary and main examinations of the Civil Services, be done away and replaced by common, compulsory papers.

(b) The Preliminary Examination should be conducted in two papers only, each of 200 marks, compulsory for all candidates. The broad syllabus of these two papers could be the same as that of the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) of the Union Public Service Commission, with minor modifications to accommodate local interests. These two papers could be called: (i) the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) Paper I, and (ii) the Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) Paper II. Questions to be asked in these two papers must be multiple choice, objective type, with no negative marking. Based on the result of the Preliminary Examination, the number of the candidates to be called for the written (Main) Examination should be around ten times of the vacancies to be filled. The cut off marks of the Main Examination should be decided accordingly by the Commission.

(c) The Main Examination should be conducted for a maximum of 1000 marks, d


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top