Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar, JJ.
Vivek Harsil - Petitioner
Versus
Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary and ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No.126, 129, 135 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.5366 of 2021, W.P.(S) No. 889, 1007, 1351, 1781 of 2022
Decided On : 16-09-2023
malpractices - Selection Process - 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 - The court discussed the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated, the requirement of a fair and reasonable process of selection, and the constitutional duty of public bodies to act fairly and reasonably. It emphasized the need to segregate wrongdoers from innocent candidates and the constitutional requirement to follow the object of Article 16(1) and the principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India in public employment. The court quashed the acceptance of candidature of private respondents, directed the rejection of candidature of ineligible candidates, and ordered the preparation of a fresh recommendation for the selection process.
Fact of the Case:
The court discussed the irregularities in the selection process, the acceptance of candidature of ineligible candidates, and the delay in the selection process due to illegal actions by the constitutional functionary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acceptance of candidature of private respondents was in conflict with the interest of the appellants, and the commission had failed to discharge its constitutional obligation by exceeding its jurisdiction. It also found that the principle of turn around had not been properly applied and the JPSC had no jurisdiction to relax the rules of recruitments/conditions of advertisement.
Issues: The issues included the acceptance of candidature of ineligible candidates, the delay in the selection process due to illegal actions by the constitutional functionary, and the failure of the JPSC to discharge its constitutional obligation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fair and reasonable process of selection, the segregation of wrongdoers from innocent candidates, and the constitutional requirement to follow the object of Article 16(1) and the principle laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India in public employment.
Final Decision: The court quashed the acceptance of candidature of private respondents, directed the rejection of candidature of ineligible candidates, and ordered the preparation of a fresh recommendation for the selection process.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. Nos.3427 of 2022 & 4060 of 2022 in W.P.(S) No.5366 of 2021
I.A. Nos.3050 of 2022 & 3072 of 2022 in W.P.(S) No.889 of 2022
I.A. Nos.4056 of 2022 & 4057 of 2022 in W.P.(S) No.1007 of 2022
1. The appellants of LPA Nos.126 of 2022, 129 of 2022 and 135 of 2022 have filed interlocutory applications for their impleadment, since, they are necessary party and having the interest with the order of the State Government, by which, the recommendation made by the JPSC has been rejected.
2. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the interveners are required to be impleaded as party to the proceeding, since they are the interested party.
3. Further, since, the intra-court appeals and these five writ petitions have been directed to be heard together, as such, they since are the interested party, hence, they are necessary to be impleaded as party to the writ petitions.
4. This Court, after taking into consideration the grounds as also the submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the impugned decision of the State Government is in continuation to the decision taken in terms of the advertisement having the same subject issue and the consequence of the prayer sought for by the writ petitioners in these writ petitions are co-related with the prayer sought for in the writ petitions from which, the intra-court appeals being L.P.A. Nos.126 of 2022, 129 of 2022 and 135 of 2022 arise, therefore, deems it fit and proper to allow the instant interlocutory applications.
5. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.3427 of 2022 & 4060 of 2022 [In W.P.(S) No.5366 of 2021], I.A. Nos.3050 of 2022 & 3072 of 2022 [In W.P.(S) No.889 of 2022], I.A. Nos.4056 of 2022 & 4057 of 2022 [In W.P.(S) No.1007 of 2022] stand allowed.
6. Accordingly, office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petitions.
L.P.A. No.126 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.5366 of 2021, L.P.A. No.129 of 2022, L.P.A. No.135 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.889 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.1007 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.1351 of 2022 & W.P.(S) No.1781 of 2022
7. It appears from the order passed on 21.06.2023 that the letters patent appeals being L.P.A. Nos.126 of 2022, 129 of 2022 and 135 of 2022 were directed to be listed side by side writ petitions being W.P.(S) Nos.889/2022, 1007/2022, 1351/2022 and 5366 of 2021 by the coordinate Division Bench of this Court on the prayer being made on behalf of the appellants and accordingly, letters patent appeals being L.P.A. Nos.126 of 2022, 129 of 2022 and 135 of 2022 and the writ petitions being W.P.(S) Nos.889/2022, 1007/2022, 1351/2022 and 5366 of 2021 have been listed together for analogous hearing.
8. Since identical issues are involved in all the appeals and the writ petitions, therefore, the same are being heard together with the consent of the parties.
9. The intra-court appeals preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the common order/judgment dated 04.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) Nos.1516 of 2021, 1413 of 2021 and 1517 of 2021 respectively, by which, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the final result published on 18.03.2021 as also refused to pass positive direction, so far as the following reliefs sought for on behalf of the writ petitioners:-
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and reasonable process of selection, the segregation of wrongdoers from innocent candidates, and the constitutional duty....
Candidates who participate in the selection process without challenging the process are precluded from challenging the results.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of the entire selection process should only be considered if there is no chance of segregating genuine candidates from those ....
[Judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. The court emphasized the importance of timely challenges to administrativ....
Innocent appointees should not suffer due to errors in the recruitment process, and their termination after successful appointments, without any fault on their part, would cause undue hardship and ru....
No additions/change being permitted.
Even if some persons have been given the opportunity to produce their documents, which cannot be said to be in accordance with the provisions of the terms of the advertisement, the same would be of n....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
