Back
T.N. Singh, R Lahoti J.
Omprakash Gupta
vs
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
DECIDED ON : 2 May, 1990
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 226 - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - SELECTION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS - ORDER RESTRICTING JURISDICTION TO MAIN SEAT - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE TO PRE-SELECTION PROCEDURE - WHETHER WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDER - RIGHT TO PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - ARTICLE 16 - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ARBITRARY ACTION OF AUTHORITIES - ARTICLE 39A - EASY ACCESS TO JUSTICE - REVALUATION OF ANSWER SCRIPT - DIRECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Two petitions were filed challenging the action of the Public Service Commission in refusing to call the petitioners for an interview for the post of Civil Judge. The petitioners contended that the order restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear cases relating to the selection of Judicial Officers to the main seat at Jabalpur was invalid as it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 21, and 39A of the Constitution. The petitioners also challenged the arbitrary marking of their answer scripts in the written examination.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear cases relating to the selection of Judicial Officers to the main seat at Jabalpur was invalid as it violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 21, and 39A of the Constitution. The Court held that the right to public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution is a fundamental right of every citizen and that a candidate offering himself for selection for the post of a judicial officer suffers neither any change in his status nor any dilution of his rights till such time as he has not been inducted into the judicial service. The Court also held that the arbitrary marking of the petitioners' answer scripts in the written examination was illegal and directed the Public Service Commission to revalue the answer scripts and conduct an interview for the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the order restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear cases relating to the selection of Judicial Officers to the main seat at Jabalpur was valid? 2. Whether the right to public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution is a fundamental right? 3. Whether a candidate offering himself for selection for the post of a judicial officer suffers any change in his status or any dilution of his rights till such time as he has not been inducted into the judicial service? 4. Whether the arbitrary marking of the petitioners' answer scripts in the written examination was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear cases relating to the selection of Judicial Officers to the main seat at Jabalpur was invalid as it violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 21, and 39A of the Constitution. 2. The right to public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution is a fundamental right of every citizen. 3. A candidate offering himself for selection for the post of a judicial officer suffers neither any change in his status nor any dilution of his rights till such time as he has not been inducted into the judicial service. 4. The arbitrary marking of the petitioners' answer scripts in the written examination was illegal.
Final Decision: The Court allowed both petitions and directed the Public Service Commission to declare the result of the petitioners' written examination, revalue their answer scripts, and conduct an interview for them. The Court also directed the Public Service Commission to consider the petitioners' cases for appointment in accordance with their performance in the written test and the interview.
T.N. Singh, J.
1. Two petitions were heard analogously for two reasons : one, our competence to hear both petitions at Gwalior Bench was challenged; two, both petitioners have challenged (on different grounds though) the same action of Public Service Comission refusing to call them for interview for the post of Civil Judge. This order shall accordingly govern disposal of both matters, namely, Misc. Petition No. 1185 of 1989 and Misc. Petition No. 1464 of 1989 (Omprakash Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.).
2. We set out below the order dated 22-4-1981, passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as that is the source of challenge to our competence to hear the petitions :
"In accordance with orders of my predecessor dated 5-2-1976. issued under the proviso to Notification No. 16/20/68-Judl. III. dated November 28, 1968, issued by the President under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (No. 36 of 1956) and in supersession of my orders dated 6-1-1981, I hereby order that all cases relating to selection and or appointment of Judicial Officers; and all cases instituted by or against Judicial Officers or Ex-Judicial Officers of Madhya Pradesh relating to termination of service or any other service matter shall be heard at Jabalpur.
This order shall also apply to pending cases."
3. Although strong reliance was placed on two Full Bench decisions of this Court, for reasons to follow, we regard that exercise to be misconceived. The decisions cited are : Abdul Taiyab Bhai and Five others v. Union of India and Five others, 1976 MPLJ 767 (FB) = 1976 JLJ 706; Balkrishan Das v. Harnarain. 1979 MPLJ 644 = 1979 JLJ 745.
4. In Abdual Taiyab Bhai (supra), the Court was required to address itself mainly to the scope of the power of the president and of the Chief Justice envisaged under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, for short, S. R. Act. Indeed, the vires of the provision was agitated and the challenge was negatived. It is true that some discussion can be read in the two separate judgments in that case on the purport and import of the expression "in respet of cases arising in" used in the Presidential order dated 28-11-1968 passed under Section 52, but that exercise was evidently inhibited by Apex Court's view expressed in kindered circumstances in regard to that expression in Nasiruddin's case, AIR 1976 SC 331. In Balkrishan Das (supra), the scope of two orders passed on same date, 5-2-1976, by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, deriving authority from the same Presidential Order was required to be determined. In that case, the Court found it necessary to determine the meaning to be attched to the words "hearing" and "determine" used in those orders as the question posed was whether writ petitions which raised questions of vires of any enactment, rule or notification had to be listed even for admission and interim order at Jabalpur and the Indore and Gwalior Benches had no jurisdication to deal with those matters.
5. In the intant case, we are required to construe a different order, albait passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in virtue of the same Presidential Order. We are required, in our view, to construe the order extracted aforesaid on its own term and language and that indeed, in the perspective of constitutional imperatives. The question that precisely arises for our determination in this case is, what meaning is to be attributed to the clause "cases relating to selection" in its context and setting in the order afore-extracted. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been urged that the phraseology needs careful examination and proper meaning is to be attributed mainly to the words "cases" and "selection". It is also urged that the meaning should accord with constitutional imperatives and the order be so construed as to maintain its constitutionality. The object of the order, it has been further urged, must be kept in view as that, can be regarded as the most reliable guide for deriving the meaning of
AI
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
