Supreme Court Of India

State of Punjab and Others V. Constable Subhash Chander and Others

No. 13-01-1993

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.

2. Respondent 1 was serving the appellant-State as a constable in the Police Department. He applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in response t o an advertisement issued in that regard. The respondent appeared at the written examination and viva-voce test held for selecting suitable candidates for appointment. He was, however, not selected and he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, which was allowed by a perfunctory judgment which is quoted below in its entirety:

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through their pleadings, we find that the petitioner, who has got excellent career and has got good marks in the written test as well as interview and also possesses very good sports career, deserves to be selected on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. In fact, the petitioner is already working as a constable in the Police Department, Punjab and is wholly suitable for the job.

Following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda v. State of Karnataka' Civil Appeal No. 4088 of 1991, we exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the State Government to consider the petitioner as duly selected for the post of ASI and appoint him on that post forthwith. In view of the necessary relief having been granted to the petitioner, we need not go into the further contentions raised by the petitioner and this will not serve as a precedent." *

3.It appears that the High Court took upon itself the decision of the claim of the respondent to be appointed to the post and, while doing so, was greatly impressed by his service record as a constable and the marks obtained by him at the selection test, however it did not take into account the merits of the selected candidates and of other candidates who, although not selected for appointment, were more meritorious than the respondent.

4.Mrs Ramamurti, learned counsel for the respondent, contended that since the High Court has relied upon the decision in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda v. State of Kamataka1 it cannot be said that the High Court had failed to support its judgment by reasons. We are unable to agree. The reported case has been mentioned as a passing observation without any attempt to indicate the ratio which could be applied to the present case. We have examined the judgment in Somanna Gowda case1 and are of the view that the same is not at all applicable to the present case.

5.It has been stated in the special leave petition that the total marks obtained by the respondent at the test were 76.55 whereas the last candidate from the general category to be appointed a s Assistant Sub-Inspector obtained 80.50 marks. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that many 1 other candidates, who failed to secure adequate marks for the purpose of selection, secured higher marks than the respondent and, since they have not been imploded as parties in the writ petition, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on that ground alone.

6.The High Court, having come to final decision in favour of the respondent without adverting t o the merits of the other candidates, acted in error.

7.Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to support the case of the respondent on some other grounds which have not been mentioned by the High Court. We at this stage cannot go into such arguments. We are of the view that the writ petition must be reheard on merits by the High Court. 8.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order, allow the appeal and remit the case to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to the costs in this Court.

Copyright 2020 by LegitQuest. All rights reserved
*