Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Mehmood Alam Tariq and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 741 of 1987 with 1389 - 1402 of 1987 and W.P. No. 286 of 1987, D/- 11-5-1988.
WITH
State of Rajasthan, Appellant
Versus
Kunj Bihari Sharma and another etc., Respondents.
Constitution of India – Article 309 – Appeals by Special Leave, arise out of the judgment, of the Division Bench of High Court of Rajasthan disposing of, by a common judgment a batch of writ appeals and writ petitions, in which was involved the question of the validity of certain provisions of the Recruitment Rules made and promulgated under the proviso by which in respect of the scheme of competitive examinations to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for recruitment to certain branches of the civil services under the State – Certain minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce test were prescribed –In these appeals the correctness of the High Courts view is questioned by the State of Rajasthan, its Public Service Commission and the successful candidates whose selections were, in consequence of invalidation of the rule, quashed by the High Court – Writ Petition before us, is by another batch of candidates selected by the Public Service Commission for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the State to effectuate the selection and issue orders of appointment –Held, My experience, which has been chiefly confined to cases in which the number of candidates was not so large is that the whole process is dangerous and infinitely hazardous – Court think most selection committees on which court have served have been very doubtful about the results of what they had done – They have done their best on insufficient materials – Process is court think fairly successful in weeding out the worst candidates – It is important to keep in mind that in this case the results of the viva voce examination are not assailed on grounds of mala fides or bias etc – Challenge to the results of the viva voce is purely as a consequence and incident of the challenge to the vires of the rule – It is also necessary to reiterate that a mere possibility of abuse of a provision does not, by itself, justify its invalidation – Validity of a provision must be tested with reference to its operation and efficacy in the generality of cases and not by the freaks or exceptions that its application might in some rare cases possibly produce – Affairs of Government cannot be conducted on principles of distrust – If the selectors had acted mala fide or with oblique motives, there are administrative law remedies to secure reliefs against such abuse of powers – Abuse vitiates any power – Appeals allowed.
Judgment
VENKATACHALIAH, J. :- These appeals by Special Leave, arise out of the judgment, dated, February 6, 1987 of the Division Bench of High Court of Rajasthan disposing of, by a common judgment a batch of writ appeals and writ petitions, in which was involved the question of the validity of certain provisions of the Recruitment Rules made and promulgated under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution by which in respect of the scheme of competitive examinations to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for recruitment to certain branches of the civil services under the State. Certain minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce test were prescribed.
2. The Division Bench, by its judgment under appeal, declared as arbitrary and unconstitutional this prescription in the rules which required that the candidates for selection to Administrative Service, the Police Service, and the Forest Service of the State should secure a minimum of 33 of the marks prescribed for the viva-voce examination. In these appeals the correctness of the High Courts view is questioned by the State of Rajasthan, its Public Service Commission and the successful candidates whose selections were, in consequence of invalidation of the rule, quashed by the High Court. The Writ Petition No. 286 of 1987 before us, is by another batch of candidates selected by the Public Service Commission for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the State to effectuate the selection and issue orders of appointment. By an interlocutory order, dated 13-3-1987 the operation of the judgment under appeal was stayed by this court. The result of this stay is that there was no impediment to effectuate the Select-List dated 17-7-1986.
3. The Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules 1962, (1962 Rules for Short); the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954, the Rajasthan Police Service Rules 1954, the Rajasthan forest Service Rules 1962 contain a provision, special to the said three services, and not applicable to other services, that candidates, other than those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, should secure a minimum of 33 of marks in the viva-voce test. It is this Rule which is the centre of controversy. The Rules also stipulate that candidates for these three services must also secure 50 in the written examinations; but that is not in the area of controversy.
Proviso (1) to Rule 15 of the 1962 rules which is the relevant Rule brings out the point. It provides
"5. Recommendations of the Commission (1) The Commission shall prepare for each Service, a list of the candidates arranged in order of merit of the candidates as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate. If two or more of such candidates obtain equal marks in the aggregate, the Commission shall arrange their names in the order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the service
Provided that :-
(i) the Commission shall not recommend any candidate for the R. A. S. /R. P. S. who has failed to obtain a minimum of 33 marks in the personality and viva-voce examination and a minimum of 50 marks in the aggregate. It shall also not recommend any candidate for other services who has failed to obtain a minimum of 45 marks in the aggregate.
(ii) ......................
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in proviso (i), the Commission shall in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes recommed the names of such candidates, up to the number of vacancies reserved for them from amongst those who have qualified for interview, even if they fail to obtain the minimum marks in viva voce or the aggregate prescribed under proviso (i) above."
(Emphasis supplied)
Similar is the purport of Proviso (i) to Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules 1954; the Rajasthan Police Service Rules 1954; the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules 1962 and the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service R
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
