Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    CPC HW 9

    Uploaded by

    vinaya
    1) The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court was unjustified in making condemnatory observations against the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission without proper evidence. 2) There was no evidence that the Commission members manipulated marks to favor candidates related to two members, as the members did not know candidates' written exam marks during interviews. 3) Calling a large number of candidates for interviews imposed burden but did not invalidate the selection process on its own. The Commission was entitled to call candidates who met the minimum eligibility criteria.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CPC HW 9

    Uploaded by

    vinaya
    48 views5 pages
    1) The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court was unjustified in making condemnatory observations against the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission without proper evidence. 2) There was no evidence that the Commission members manipulated marks to favor candidates related to two members, as the members did not know candidates' written exam marks during interviews. 3) Calling a large number of candidates for interviews imposed burden but did not invalidate the selection process on its own. The Commission was entitled to call candidates who met the minimum eligibility criteria.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court was unjustified in making condemnatory observations against the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission without proper evidence. 2) There was no evidence that the Commission members manipulated marks to favor candidates related to two members, as the members did not know candidates' written exam marks during interviews. 3) Calling a large number of candidates for interviews imposed burden but did not invalidate the selection process on its own. The Commission was entitled to call candidates who met the minimum eligibility criteria.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views5 pages

    CPC HW 9

    Uploaded by

    vinaya
    1) The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court was unjustified in making condemnatory observations against the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission without proper evidence. 2) There was no evidence that the Commission members manipulated marks to favor candidates related to two members, as the members did not know candidates' written exam marks during interviews. 3) Calling a large number of candidates for interviews imposed burden but did not invalidate the selection process on its own. The Commission was entitled to call candidates who met the minimum eligibility criteria.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

    HOMEWORK 9

    Case Name:- Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors.vs State Of Haryana And Ors. 

    Citation:- 1987 AIR 454.

    Bench:- Bhagwati, P.N.

    Facts:-

     This case revolves around the recruitment tom posts in Haryana Civil Service and
    other allied services.
     The Punjab Civil Service(Executive Branch), Rules 1930 prescribes a
    competitive examination for recruitment to posts in Haryana Civil Service
    (Executive) and other allied services.
     The written examination carries an aggregate of 700 marks for candidates in general
    and for ex-servicemen it carries an aggregate of 400 marks while in case of both, the
    viva voce examination carries 200 marks. Regulation 3 provides that no candidate
    shall be eligible.
     119 posts became available for being filled and on the basis of total marks obtained
    in the written examination as well as viva- voce test, 119 candidates were selected
    and recommended by the Haryana Public Service Commission to the State
    Government.
     The respondents-petitioners had obtained very high marks ,at the written
    examination but owing to rather poor marks obtained in the viva voce test, they could
    not come within the first 119 candidates and were consequently not selected.
     Thus he filed a writ petition in the High Court an Punjab and Haryana H.C gave
    judgement in favour of the Petitioner.
     Thus Respondents filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India.

    ISSUES

    1. Whether Recruitment to posts in Haryana Civil Service (Executive) & Allied


    Services-Selection by Public Service Commission. Some interviewed candidates
    closely related to Members-Selections vitiated?
    2. Whether the viva voce examination suffers from the vice of arbitrariness?
    3. Whether Natural Justice-Condemnatory observations made by High Court against
    Chairman and Members of Public Service Commission without their being party
    respondents?
    Petitioner’s Argument:- (1) that the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service
    Commission were not men of high integrity, calibre and qualification and they were
    appointed solely as a matter of political patronage and hence the selections made by them
    were invalid.
    (2) that three of the selected candidates were related to two members of the Commission
    namely, Shri R.C. Marya and Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur and though these two members did
    not participate in the interview of their respective relatives, they did participate in the
    interview of other candidates and the tactic adopted by the Chairman and the members of
    the Commission was to give high marks to the relatives and award low marks to the other
    candidates so as to ensure the selection of their relatives. This vitiated the entire selection
    process.
    (3) that the number of candidates called for interview were almost 20 times the number
    of vacancies and this not only imposed an intolerable burden on the Haryana Public Service
    Commission but also widened the scope for arbitrariness in selection by making it possible
    for the Haryana Public Service Commission to boost up or deflate the total marks which
    might be obtained by a candidate. This infirmity had the effect of invaliding the selection
    made by Haryana Public Service Commission
    (4) that the allocation of 200 marks for the viva voce test out of a total of 900 marks for the
    generality of students and a total of 600 marks for ex servicemen was excessive and it had
    the effect of distorting the entire process of selection and it was accordingly unconstitutional
    as involving denial of equal opportunity in public employment; and
    (5) that the viva voce test was not conducted fairly and honestly and the selections made
    were vitiated on account of nepotism, favouritism and casteism and also political
    motivation.

    Interpretation of Apex Court:-

    In this case the interpretation of court is similar to the appellant’s argument. So I am


    including the arguments on behalf of appellants in the Interpretation.
    1. The Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in making condemnatory
    observations against the Chairman and all the members of the Haryana Public Service
    Commission. Three members namely S/Sh. D.R. Chaudhary, Raghubar Dayal
    Gaur and R.C. Marya were joined as respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 but the Chairman Shri B.S.
    Lather and another member Shri Gurmesh Prakash Bishnoi were not impleaded in the writ
    petitions and yet the most damaging observations were made against them This was clearly
    in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, these observations against the
    Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission were made without
    any factual basis on the pleadings or the evidence.
    2. There was no material whatsoever on record to justify the observations made by the
    Division Bench that high marks were undeservedly given to the three candidates related to
    Shri R.C. Marya and Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur and low marks were deliberately given to
    the other meritorious candidates with a view to manipulating the selection of the former at
    the cost of the latter. In fact, far from there being any material supportive of such
    observation, there is
    one circumstance, which, completely militates against the view taken by the Division
    Bench and that circumstance is that the marks obtained by the candidates at the written
    examination were not disclosed to the members of the Haryana Public Service
    Commission who held the viva voce examination. If the members, who interviewed the
    candidates, did not know what were the marks obtained by the candidates at the written
    examination, it is difficult to see how they could have manipulated the marks at the viva
    voce examination with a view to pushing up the three candidates related to Shri R.C.
    Marya and Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur or any other candidates of their choice so as to bring
    them
    within the range of selection.
    3. Moreover, neither of them took any part in any discussion in regard to the merits of his
    relatives nor is there anything to show that the marks or credits obtained by their
    respective relatives at the interviews were disclosed to them. There was no infirmity
    attaching to the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission on the ground
    that, though their close relative were appearing for the interview, Shri Raghubar Dayal
    Gaur and Shri R.C. Marya did not withdraw completely from the entire selection process.
    4. The Haryana Public Service Commission was not right in calling for interview all the
    1300 and odd candidates who secured 45 per cent or more marks in the written
    examination. It is clear on a plain natural construction of Regulation 3 that what it
    prescribes is merely a minimum qualification for eligibility to appear at the viva voce test.
    5. The Court directed that when selections to the Judicial Service are being made in a
    State, a sitting Judge of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the State
    should be invited to participate in the interview as an expert who, by reason of the fact that he
    is a sitting
    High Court Judge, knows the quality and character of the candidates appearing for the
    interview and the advice given by him should ordinarily be accepted, unless there are
    strong and cogent reasons for not accepting such advice and such strong and cogent reasons
    must be recorded in writing by the Chairman and members of the Public Service
    Commission.
    Finally the Appeal was allowed.

    Cases Referred:-

     C. Ranga Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1981] 3 S.C.R. 474


     A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 150
     D.K. Khanna v. Union of India & Ors. [1973] 1 S.L.R.80
     Surinder Nath Goel v. State of Punjab [1973] 1 Ser. L.R.690 and
     M. Ariffudin v. D.D. Chitaley & Ors. [1973] 2 Ser. L.R. 11

    Y. VINAYA
    2018LLB102

    You might also like