# RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS v. SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1096
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-04-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramjit-singh-kardam-ors-v-sanjeev-kumar-ors-34634
- **Pages:** 52

## Headnote

Service Law: Selection process - Criteria for selection -
Challenged by candidates - Rule of estoppel - Applicability of - It
is a general preposition that a candidate, who participates in a
selection without a demur taking a calculated chance to get selected
cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection and the
constitution of the selection committee - However, in the instant
case, Commission had not published any criteria on the basis of
which candidates were to be subjected for selection process and
the candidates participated in the selection without knowing the
criteria of selection - In such situation, they cannot be shut out
from challenging the process of selection when ultimately they came
to know that Commission step by step had diluted the merit in
selection - Further when the written examination as notified earlier
was scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for interview
giving a go bye to a fair and reasonable process for shortlisting the
candidates for interview, that too only by Chairman of the
Commission whereas decision regarding criteria of selection was to
be taken by Commission, the candidates have every right to challenge
the entire selection process so conducted - Rule of estoppel.
Service Law: Selection process - Decision to cancel the
written examination and to call the candidates for interview eight
times number of vacancies on minimum percentage of marks as fixed
therein and a subsequent decision to call all the eligible candidates
for interview - Propriety of - Held: These decisions were arbitrary
decision to change the selection criteria which have effect of
downgrading the merit in the selection - The present is a case where
change in criteria was affected and altered arbitrarily with the object
of down-grading and not up-grading the standards of selection.
Service Law: Haryana Staff Selection Commission - Selection
for the post of PTI - Criteria for selection - Power vested in
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1096
1096
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1097
Commission to fix the criteria for selection - By notification dated
28.07.1998, the Commission was empowered to devise the mode of
selection and fix the criteria for selection of post for which
requisition is sent to it by a Department or an office, as it may deem
appropriate - As per notification dated 21.06.2007, the Commission
is to consist of nine members including the Chairman - The selection
on various posts was to be conducted as per the criteria fixed by
the Commission - There are no separate statutory rules providing
for criteria for recruitment for different posts including the post of
PTI.
Service Law: Haryana Staff Selection Commission - Multimember body - Decisions taken by the Chairman - Binding effect -
Held: The statutory notifications when entrust the Commission to
devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria and the Commission
being multi-member body, Chairman alone was not competent to
alter the mode of selection and the criteria, which was fixed and
published for conducting the selection for the post of PTI - The
Commission being a multi-member body, all decisions pertaining to
mode of selection and criteria was to be taken by the Commission
itself, there being no rules or resolution delegating the said power
to Chairman or any other member - The decision of not holding
written examination, decision to screen on the basis of eight times
of vacancies and percentage of marks and decision to call all
eligible candidates, were all decisions taken by the Chairman himself,
which decisions cannot be said to be decisions of the Commission.
Service Law - Selection process - Posts of PTI - Staff Selection
Commission, a multi-member body - Decision of Chairman of the
Commission to change selection process i.e. not to hold the written
examination due to "administrative reasons" - As per the
advertisement for the selection of posts of PTI, the Commission had
published the criteria for selection on 28.12.2006 which was
implemented also- The d

## Text

_Characters 0–39,903 of 119,023. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39903 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS.
v.
SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020)
APRIL 08, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law: Selection process - Criteria for selection -
Challenged by candidates - Rule of estoppel - Applicability of - It
is a general preposition that a candidate, who participates in a
selection without a demur taking a calculated chance to get selected
cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection and the
constitution of the selection committee - However, in the instant
case, Commission had not published any criteria on the basis of
which candidates were to be subjected for selection process and
the candidates participated in the selection without knowing the
criteria of selection - In such situation, they cannot be shut out
from challenging the process of selection when ultimately they came
to know that Commission step by step had diluted the merit in
selection - Further when the written examination as notified earlier
was scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for interview
giving a go bye to a fair and reasonable process for shortlisting the
candidates for interview, that too only by Chairman of the
Commission whereas decision regarding criteria of selection was to
be taken by Commission, the candidates have every right to challenge
the entire selection process so conducted - Rule of estoppel.
Service Law: Selection process - Decision to cancel the
written examination and to call the candidates for interview eight
times number of vacancies on minimum percentage of marks as fixed
therein and a subsequent decision to call all the eligible candidates
for interview - Propriety of - Held: These decisions were arbitrary
decision to change the selection criteria which have effect of
downgrading the merit in the selection - The present is a case where
change in criteria was affected and altered arbitrarily with the object
of down-grading and not up-grading the standards of selection.
Service Law: Haryana Staff Selection Commission - Selection
for the post of PTI - Criteria for selection - Power vested in
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1096
1096
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1097
Commission to fix the criteria for selection - By notification dated
28.07.1998, the Commission was empowered to devise the mode of
selection and fix the criteria for selection of post for which
requisition is sent to it by a Department or an office, as it may deem
appropriate - As per notification dated 21.06.2007, the Commission
is to consist of nine members including the Chairman - The selection
on various posts was to be conducted as per the criteria fixed by
the Commission - There are no separate statutory rules providing
for criteria for recruitment for different posts including the post of
PTI.
Service Law: Haryana Staff Selection Commission - Multimember body - Decisions taken by the Chairman - Binding effect -
Held: The statutory notifications when entrust the Commission to
devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria and the Commission
being multi-member body, Chairman alone was not competent to
alter the mode of selection and the criteria, which was fixed and
published for conducting the selection for the post of PTI - The
Commission being a multi-member body, all decisions pertaining to
mode of selection and criteria was to be taken by the Commission
itself, there being no rules or resolution delegating the said power
to Chairman or any other member - The decision of not holding
written examination, decision to screen on the basis of eight times
of vacancies and percentage of marks and decision to call all
eligible candidates, were all decisions taken by the Chairman himself,
which decisions cannot be said to be decisions of the Commission.
Service Law - Selection process - Posts of PTI - Staff Selection
Commission, a multi-member body - Decision of Chairman of the
Commission to change selection process i.e. not to hold the written
examination due to "administrative reasons" - As per the
advertisement for the selection of posts of PTI, the Commission had
published the criteria for selection on 28.12.2006 which was
implemented also- The decision for not holding the written
examination and steps taken consequent thereto were all arbitrary
decisions, unsustainable in law - Power to device the mode of
selection and fix the criteria for selection was entrusted on the
Commission to further the object of selection on merit to fill up post
in State in consonance with the provisions of Arts.14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India - The Commission being recruiting body
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
abdicated its obligation of screening out the best candidates - When
the alteration of criteria has been made, which has obviously
affected the merit selection, the allegations which have been made
in the writ petition against the Commission in conducting the
selection are allegations of malice-in-law and not malice-in-factThe observation of the High Court that "it cannot be a mere coincidence that 90% of the meritorious candidates in academics
performed so poorly in viva voce that they could not secure even
10 marks out of the 30 marks or that the brilliance got configurated
only in the average candidates possessing bare eligibility" where
inferences drawn from result sheet re-affirmed the allegations of
malice-in-law.
Service law: Selection process - High Court's direction to
quash the selection made by the Selection Commission and to hold
fresh selection - Held: In the instant case, the directions ought to
have been issued to complete the process from the stage of holding
the written test - All the candidates who had applied for the post of
PTI including those selected, ought to have been permitted to take
the written test -There was no requirement of fresh advertisement
and inviting fresh applications -All the applicants who applied in
response to advertisement had right to participate in selection as
per criterion notified on 28.12.2006 -Thus, High Court's direction
to quash the selection made by the Selection Commission and to
hold fresh selection is modified - The Commission shall conclude
the entire process initiated by the advertisement as per criterion
notified on 28.12.2006 - All the applicants who had submitted
applications in response to the advertisement including those who
were selected shall be permitted to participate in the fresh selection.
Words and Phrases: Expression "malice in fact" and "malice
in law" are two well-known concepts in law - The malice in law has
been dealt as "something done without lawful excuse" - The malice
in law is also malafide exercise of power, exercise of statutory power
for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. By notification dated 28.07.1998, the Commission
was empowered to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria
for selection of post for which requisition is sent to it by a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1099
Department or an office, as it may deem appropriate. As per
notification dated 21.06.2007, the Commission shall consist of
nine members including the Chairman. The selection on various
posts was to be conducted as per the criteria fixed by the
Commission. There are no separate statutory rules providing
for criteria for recruitment for different posts including the post
of PTI. [Paras 33, 34][1121-C-D][1122-A-B]
2.1 The preposition that a candidate, who participates in a
selection without a demur taking a calculated chance to get
selected cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection
and the constitution of the selection committee is well settled. In
the instant case, both appellants and the respondents had
submitted applications in pursuance of advertisement dated
28.07.2006 which provided that the Commission may shortlist
the candidates for interview by holding a written examination or
on the basis of a rational criteria to be adopted by the Commission.
The Commission on 28.12.2006 published the criteria for calling
the candidates for interview. Notice dated 28.12.2006 provided
that written examination shall be held for post of PTI on
21.01.2007, on 100 objective type multiple choice questions, each
question carrying two marks. The notification also prescribed
the minimum qualifying marks- 50% for General category, SC
BC and ESM 45% and 25% marks was assigned to the viva voce.
The above criteria was implemented and written examination was
conducted on 21.01.2007, which examination was cancelled citing
complaints regarding malpractices in the written examination.
Further notice dated 11.06.2008 was published fixing 20.07.2008
for written examination as per criteria earlier notified. Before
the above examination could take place, by another public notice,
it was cancelled. Another public notice dated 11.07.2008 was
published where Commission decided to shortlist eight times
the candidates of the advertised post with minimum weightage
secured in each category. The said shortlisting was also given
up by notice dated 31.07.2009 when it was decided to call all
eligible candidates for interview. Commission did not publish any
criteria or marks on the basis of which interview was to be held.
The criteria, which was published by the Commission on
28.12.2006, 11.06.2008 and 11.07.2008 were given up step by
step and no criteria was published for interview. When
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Commission had not published any criteria on the basis of which
candidates were going to be subjected for selection process and
the candidates participated in the selection without knowing the
criteria of selection, they cannot be shut out from challenging
the process of selection when ultimately they came to know that
Commission step by step has diluted the merit in selection.
Further when the written examination as notified earlier was
scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for interview
giving a go bye to a fair and reasonable process for shortlisting
the candidates for interview, that too only by Chairman of the
Commission whereas decision regarding criteria of selection has
to be taken by Commission, the candidates have every right to
challenge the entire selection process so conducted. [Paras 37,
39][1122-F][1124-A-D]
Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others
(1995) 3 SCC 486 : [1995] 1 SCR 908; K.A. Nagamani
v. Indian Airlines and Others (2009) 5 SCC 515 : [2009]
5 SCR 89; Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and
Others (2010) 12 SCC 576; Madras Institute of
Development
Studies
and
Another
v.
K.
Sivasubramaniyan and Others (2016) 1 SCC 454 :
[2015] 14 SCR 276; Ashok Kumar and Another v. State
of Bihar and Others (2017) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 8 SCR
815; Raj Kumar and Others v. Shakti Raj and Others
(1997) 9 SCC 527 : [1997] 1 SCR 1159; Bishnu Biswas
and Others v. Union of India and Others (2014) 5 SCC
774 : [2014] 4 SCR 625 - referred to.
2.2 The Division Bench of the High Court is right in its
conclusion that the selection criteria, which saw the light of the
day along with declaration of the selection result could be assailed
by the unsuccessful candidates only after it was published.
Similarly, selection process which was notified was never followed
and the selection criteria which was followed was never notified
till the declaration of final result, hence, the writ petitioners cannot
be estopped from challenging the selection. The writ petitions
could not have been thrown on the ground of estoppel. [Para
41][1126-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1101
Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1981) 4
SCC 159 : [1982] 1 SCR 320; Ashok Kumar Yadav
and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1985) 4
SCC 417 : [1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657 - referred to.
3.1 On 30.06.2008, a type note by the Superintendent
(Recruitment-I) was prepared mentioning that the Chairman had
ordered that written test for the posts of DPE, Art and Craft
Teacher and PTI, Education Department, Haryana, scheduled to
take place, may be "cancelled on administrative reasons". The
said note was approved by the Chairman and he also approved
the notice to be published for cancellation of the proposed written
examination. Neither the note nor the order of Chairman
approving the note give any indication of "administrative reasons"
for cancellation of the examination. Another important change
which was effected in the criteria for selection was the notification
with the approval of note dated 10.07.2008 which mentioned that
the worthy Chairman had issued oral direction that in respect of
the advertisement, candidates are required to be short-listed eight
times of the vacancy and called for interview. Short-listing was to
be done on the percentage of the marks of the candidates with
minimum percentage mentioned therein. The above criteria was
also given up when another note dated 31.07.2008 was approved
by the Chairman where the Chairman decided that all the eligible
candidates be called for interview changing the earlier criteria.
The sequence of events indicates that in accordance with the
"special instruction", the Commission decided the criteria for
calling the candidates for the selection as holding of written
examination of 200 marks and interview for 25 marks which was
the perfect criteria looking to the number of the candidates i.e.
20,836 who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement for
the post of PTI. The criteria was implemented by holding a written
test which was cancelled due to some complaints. The written
test was again notified which was withdrawn, the earlier criterion
was given a go bye by another notification. This indicates that
the standard on which candidates are to be screened for selection
was downgraded by Chairman of his own. When the number of
candidates who applied against certain posts are enormously large,
short-listing has always been treated as an accepted mode to
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
correctly value the work and merit of the candidate.
[Paras 44, 45][1129-B-H]
3.2 As per the notification, it is the Commission, who "shall
devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection."
The said power has to be exercised in a reasonable and fair manner
to advance the purpose and object of selection. Even if assuming
that the criteria can be changed by selecting body from time to
time,the said change cannot be affected arbitrarily. The present
is a case where change in criteria has been affected and altered
arbitrarily with the object of down-grading and not up-grading
the standards of selection. [Paras 46, 48][1130-E][1131-D-E]
Tamil Nadu Computer Science BED Graduate Teachers
Welfare Society(1) v. Higher Secondary School
Computer Teachers Association and Others (2009) 14
SCC 517 : [2009] 10 SCR 522 - followed.
Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High
Court and Others (2013) 4 SCC 540 - referred to.
3.3 The notifications issued under proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India specifically provides that the
Commission shall devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria
for selection of posts. The Commission is a multi-member body,
which acts collectively. The Commission in the counter affidavits
filed before High Court or this Court has not brought any rules
or resolution of the Commission by which power of the
Commission to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria
have been delegated to any other member including the
Chairman. When there are no statutory rules regarding allocation
of business of the Commission or delegating its business to
members or Committee, the Commission could very well by its
resolution devise its own mode of exercising such power or
function. [Paras 49, 50][1131-F-H][1132-B]
Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and Others (1974) 4 SCC 788 : [1974] 3 SCR 624 -
referred to.
Principles of Administrative Law : M.P. Jain & S.N.
Jain, 6th Edition, writes in Chapter LXXII - referred
to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1103
3.4 The Division Bench of the High Court after pursuing
the original records, which was summoned by it from the
Commission has returned a finding that the decision of the
Commission dated 30.06.2008, 11.07.2008 as well as 31.07.2008
were all taken by the Chairman alone, which was proved from
original records containing the relevant notes and approval by
the Chairman. The alteration of criteria, thus, was sole handiwork of the Chairman, which decision was not the decision of the
Commission. The criteria for conducting selection for the post of
PTI as was published on 28.12.2006 was altered by the Chairman
step by step completely giving a go bye to the method of merit
selection. The decision of Chairman of the Commission dated
30.06.2008 not to hold the written examination was claimed to
have been taken due to "administrative reasons", but what were
"administrative reasons" were never disclosed or brought on
record by the Commission. The decision to change the selection
process as notified on 28.06.2006 was a major decision not only
affecting the applicants who had to participate in the selection on
the basis of criteria as notified on 28.12.2006 but had adverse
effect on merit selection as devised for 1983 posts of PTI.
[Paras 51, 54][1132-E-G][11345-C-E]
4. The Commission being recruiting body abdicated its
obligation of screening out the best candidates; The competitive
examination, are means by which equality of opportunity is to be
united with efficiency. By the said method, favouritism was to be
excluded and the goal of securing the best man for the job was to
be achieved. Estopping the petitioners from challenging the
change of criteria will be giving seal to arbitrary changes affected
by Chairman. [Paras 55, 57][1134-G-H][1135-A]
5. The Commission being a multi-member body, all
decisions pertaining to mode of selection and criteria was to be
taken by the Commission itself, there being no rules or resolution
delegating the said power to Chairman or any other member.
The decision of not holding written examination dated 30.06.2008,
decision to screen on the basis of eight times of vacancies and
percentage of marks dated 11.07.2008 and decision dated
31.07.2008 to call all eligible candidates, were all decisions taken
by the Chairman himself, which decisions cannot be said to be
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
decisions of the Commission. The decision dated 03.08.2008 was
never taken on 03.08.2008 as claimed and the said resolution
was prepared subsequent to declaration of the result when the
Single Judge asked for criteria of the selection, which was
produced in a separate loose sheet signed by all members.
[Para 58][1135-G-H; 1136-B]
Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS
Projects Limited and Others (2013) 1 SCC 524 : [2012]
9 SCR 690 - referred to.
6.1 The present is not a case of malice in fact. The "malice
in fact" and "malice in law" are two well-known concepts in law.
The malice in law has been dealt as "something done without
lawful excuse". The malice in law is also mala fide exercise of
power, exercise of statutory power for purposes foreign to those
for which it is in law intended. In the present case, the power to
device the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection was
entrusted on the Commission to further the object of selection
on merit to fill up post in State in consonance with the provisions
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When the
alteration of criteria has been made, which has obviously affected
the merit selection, the allegations which have been made in the
writ petition against the Commission in conducting the selection
are allegations of malice-in-law and not malice-in-fact. [Paras 61,
62][1138-F; 1140-E-G]
6.2 The High Court had summoned the original records of
the Commission including the marks awarded to the candidates
both on basic qualification as well as essential qualification as
well as viva voce. The observation of the High Court that "it
cannot be a mere co-incidence that 90% of the meritorious
candidates in academics performed so poorly in viva voce that
they could not secure even 10 marks out of the 30 marks or that
the brilliance got configurated only in the average candidates
possessing bare eligibility" where inferences drawn from result
sheet and re-affirms the allegations of malice-in-law. The
inferences drawn by the High Court, thus, cannot be said to be
unfounded nor are based on no material or perverse so as to call
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1105
for any interference by this Court in these appeals. There is no
substance in the submission that since no specific allegations
against Chairman and members have been made and they being
not impleaded as the parties, the allegations in the writ petition
regarding allocation of marks in viva voce cannot be looked into
by the High Court. [Para 63][1140-H; 1141-A-C]
State of Haryana and Another v. Sandeep Singh and
Others (2019) 6 SCC 453 : [2019] 7 SCR 181 -
referred to.
7. When the selection for 1983 posts of PTI was set aside
and the High Court directed to hold a fresh selection, the selection
process was to be continued and completed under the orders of
the High Court. However, selection initiated by advertisement
has to proceed further from the stage the criterion was arbitrarily
changed by the Chairman. The completion of selection has to be
only from amongst the candidates who had applied against post
of PTI, including those who were selected. All the candidates
who had applied for the post of PTI including those selected,
ought to be permitted to take the written test. In the facts of the
present case, there was no requirement of fresh advertisement
and inviting fresh applications. In the event fresh applications
are called, large number of applicants who participated in the
selection would have become over age. All the applicants who
had applied in response to advertisement had right to participate
in selection as per criterion notified on 28.12.2006. The direction
of Single Judge is modified to the above effect. The Commission
shall conclude the entire selection process initiated by the
advertisement No.6 of 2006 as per criterion notified on 28.12.2006
i.e. holding objective type written test of 200 marks and viva
voce of 25 marks. All the applicants who had submitted
applications in response to the above advertisement including
those who were selected shall be permitted to participate in the
fresh selection as directed. [Paras 72, 73, 75][1145-D-F; 1145H; 1146-A-B; 1146-G-H; 1147-A]
C. Channabasavaih Etc. Etc. v. State of Mysore and
Others AIR 1965 SC 1293 : [1965] SCR 360 - referred
to.
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1995] 1 SCR 908
referred to
Para 37
[2009] 5 SCR 89
referred to
Para 37
(2010) 12 SCC 576
referred to
Para 37
[2015] 14 SCR 276
referred to
Para 37
[2016] 8 SCR 815
referred to
Para 37
[1997] 1 SCR 1159
referred to
Para 39
[2014] 4 SCR 625
referred to
Para 40
[1982] 1 SCR 320
referred to
Para 42
[1985] 1 Suppl. SCR 657
referred to
Para 43
[2009] 10 SCR 522
followed
Para 47
(2013) 4 SCC 540
referred to
Para 48
[1974] 3 SCR 624
referred to
Para 50
[2012] 9 SCR 690
referred to
Para 59
[2019] 7 SCR 181
referred to
Para 69
[1965] SCR 360
referred to
Para 74
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2103
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2013 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 1594 of 2012.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2104, 2105, 2107, 2106, 2108, 2164-2166, 21682169, 2167 of 2020.
Anil Grover, AAG, Kapil Sibal, Manjeet Singh Dalal, Manoj
Swarup, Narender Hooda, Sr. Advs., Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Sarvshree,
Ravi Bharuka, Pradeep Dahiya, Jusine George, Ms. Srishti Agrawal,
Sanjiv Goel, Ms. Nandita Hooda, Jay Kishor Singh, Nirmal Kumar
Pandey, Mohit Raj, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Mirtunjay Kumar Singh,
Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Madhu Gupta, Ms. Mamta
Upadhyaya, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Sunny Choudhary, Mrs. Shiel Sethi,
Harkesh Singh, Sanjay Rathee, Ms. Beena, Amit Chahal, Suryaveer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1107
Singh, Mrs. Mahima Singh, Satyendra Kumar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Harikesh
Singh, R. Duatan, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Satish Kumar, Mukesh K. Verma,
Ramesh Goyal, Prakash Yadav, Ms. Namrata Bhatnagar, Anis Ahmed
Khan, Deepak Thukral, Satish Kumar, Dr. Monika Gusain, D. Goyal,
Gautam Sharma, Abhishek Kumar, Tushar Sharma, Ms. Anindita Pujari,
Aditya Singh, Shubham Singh, Pankaj Yadav, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Bharat
Singh, Abhijeet Pandore, Mahipal Khagnwal, Amit Pawan, Santosh
Mishra, Ramesh Goyal, Arihant Goel, Neelmani Pant, Ms. Vidisha
Swarup, Rakesh Kumar, Akshay Verma, Saurav Arora, Pawan, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment
dated 30.09.2013 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing LPA
filed by the appellants affirming the judgment of learned Single Judge
dated 11.09.2012 by which the Selection dated 10.04.2010 selecting
appellants on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) was set
aside. All the appeals having been filed against the common judgment
involving common facts and questions of law, for deciding the batch of
appeals, it shall be sufficient to refer pleadings in Civil Appeal No.2103/
2020, Ramjit Singh Kardam and others versus Sanjeev Kumar and others.
2. The brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding these appeals
are: -
2.1.
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter
referred to as Commission) vide Advertisement No.6 of
2006 dated 20.07.2006 invited applications for various posts
enumerated in different category numbers in the
Advertisement. Under category No.23, 1,983 posts of PTI
(Physical Training Instructor) were advertised. The
Advertisement mentioned the educational qualifications for
the post. Advertisement contained a special instruction in
following words: -
"SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
The prescribed essential qualification does not entitle
a candidate to be called for interview. The
Commission may short list the candidates for
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
interview by holding a written examination or on the
basis of a rational criteria to be adopted by the
Commission. The decision of the Commission in all
matters relating to acceptance or rejection of an
application, eligibility/suitability of the candidates,
mode of and criteria for selection etc. will be final
and binding on the candidates. No inquiry or
correspondence will be entertained in this regard."
2.2.
In pursuance of advertisement for the posts of PTI, 20,836
applications were received by the Commission.The
notification dated 28.12.2006 was published by the
Commission to the effect that the Commission has decided
to hold the written examination on 21.01.2007. Notification
further mentioned there shall be 100 objective type Multiple
Choice Questions, 60 Questions relating to Academic
Knowledge of the respective subject for which a candidate
is appearing in the test and 40 Questions related to General
Knowledge, General English and Hindi upto Matric Standard.
Each question was to carry two marks. The candidates
were required to secure minimum qualifying marks in written
test i.e. 50% for General Category and 45% for SC/BC.
Notification further mentioned that Viva-voice will be of 25
marks. The notification further provided that candidates
equal to three times of the vacancies will be called for
interview based on their performance in the written test.
The written examination was held on 21.02.2007.
2.3.
A public notice was issued on 01.02.2007 by the Commission
that due to several complaints/reports with regard to
malpractices and cheating committed in written examination
held on 21.01.2007, Commission has decided to cancel the
aforesaid examination.
2.4.
Another notice dated 11.06.2008 was issued by the
Commission re-notifying the written examination for the PTI
on 20.07.2008. However, before the written examination
could take place on 20.07.2008, another notice dated
30.06.2008 was issued by the Commission cancelling the
written examination to be held on 20.07.2008. Another
notice dated 11.07.2008 was published by the Commission
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1109
to shortlist the candidates for interview. The notice
mentioned that keeping in view the large number of
applications, Commission has decided to shortlist eight times
candidates of the advertised post in the respective category
for interview on the basis of essential academic advertised
qualification. Notice also mentioned the minimum weighted
score of each category.
2.5.
On 18.07.2008, the interview schedule was published by
the Commission which provided that Interview was notified
from 02.09.2008 to 17.10.2008. 15,582 candidates appeared
in the interview. One member of the Commission and one
expert member headed each Interview Committee from A
to H. Although the interview was completed in the year
2008 itself, the Commission could declare the result of the
selection after one and half years only on 10.04.2010 which
was published on 11.04.2010. At the end of the result as
published in the newspaper, criteria adopted for selection
was also mentioned to the following effect: -
"CRITERIA ADOPTED FOR SELECTION:
The criteria adopted by the Commission for making
selection is given below: -
1)
Academic marks............60 Marks
2)
Marks obtained in the Viva voice out of
..............................30 Marks
Total: 90- Marks"
3. Challenging the Select list dated 10.04.2010, large number of
writ petitions were filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court including
CWP No.15656 of 2010, Sanjeev Kumar and others versus State of
Haryana and others. The writ petitioners before filing writ petitions had
obtained information under Right to Information Act details of which
information were mentioned in the writ petition. Various grounds were
taken in the writ petition to challenge the selection. The writ petitioners
pleaded in the writ petition that some of the candidates have been awarded
more than 25 marks in viva-voice. Further, some of the candidates have
been selected and appointed who did not possess the requisite qualification
of certificate in Physical Education conducted by Haryana Education
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by Haryana
Education Department. The petitioners further pleaded that once the
criteria was laid down by the Commission, the same was required to be
followed strictly while making the selection and it was not proper to
change the criteria. The petitioners pleaded that criteria has been changed
by the respondent authority to get the desired result and in order to bring
the candidates within the zone of selection in order to grant them undue
benefits for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities.
4. The Petitioner No.1 of CWP No.15656 of 2010 pleaded that
out of 62 Candidates who have been appointed in district Yamuna Nagar,
61 are less meritorious as compared to petitioner No.1. The petitioner
No.1 although secured 41.68 marks in academic qualifications but could
get only 8 marks in the interview. Petitioner further pleaded that all other
petitioners secured good marks in academic qualifications but they
received less marks in viva-voice due to which they could not be included
in the Select list.
5. On an application given under RTI asking for a copy of the
criteria, it was only on 17.06.2010 the criteria was supplied. The writ
petitioners further pleaded that authorities while making selection neither
adopted any rationale criteria nor selected the candidates on the basis of
merit. The criteria was changed from time to time in order to select
some favourites. Entire selection appears to be a fraud played upon the
general public. 25 marks were mentioned for viva-voice but when the
result was finalized the candidates were awarded marks more than 25
marks. Paragraph 51 of the W.P.No.15656 of 2010 enumerated the main
points involved in the writ petition.
"51. That the main law points involved in the writ petition
are: -
i)
Whether the respondent - authorities have adopted pick
and choose policy while selecting the private respondents?
ii) Whether the marks allocated for the interview as per the
advertisement could be changed subsequently after the
commencement of the selection procedure at the whims of
the respondent authorities?
iii) Whether any rational criteria was adopted by the
respondent - authorities while awarding the marks for
the viva-voce?
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1111
iv) Whether the marks for the viva-voice were required to be
bifurcated under various heads?
v)
Whether the persons who did not possess even the requisite
educational qualification could be selected for the post?
vi) Whether the selection conducted by the respondent -
authorities is fair transparent and sustainable in the eyes
of law?
vii) Whether while making the selection Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India have been violated?
viii) Whether the action of the respondent-authorities is
arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in the eyes
of law?
ix) Whether the petitioners should be allowed to suffer for
no fault on their part especially when the petitioners
possess better academic record as compared to the selected
candidates?"
6. In the writ petition No.15656 of 2010, following prayers were
made:-
"
i.
relevant records of the case be summoned;
ii.
to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
selection list Annexure P-9 dated 10.04.2010 and to issue
a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent
authorities to select and appoint the petitioners as PTI's
and it is further prayed that during the pendency of the
writ petition the respondents may kindly be restrained from
appointing the selected candidates to the posts of PTI's.
iii. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the present case;
iv. To dispense with from filing the certified copies of the
Annexures;
v.
Prior notices to the respondents may kindly be dispensed
with;
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
vi. To allow the petitioners to file photostat copies of the
Annexures;
vii. Costs of the writ petition be awarded in favour of the
petitioners and against the respondents,
Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fir may
kindly be passed."
7. The selected candidates were also subsequently impleaded as
parties in most of the writ petitions and repeated efforts were made to
serve them. Hundreds of selected candidates were duly served. Written
statements were also filed by selected candidates in the writ petitions.
The High Court noticed that several respondents have not been served
due to various reasons. Rest of candidates were served through
substituted service for which public notice was published in the daily
"The Tribune" on 21.03.2012.
8. A counter affidavit was also filed by the Commission opposing
the writ petition. Learned Single Judge had also called for the original
record from the Commission which were produced by the Commission
before the Court.
9. Learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties
and after perusing the record allowed all the writ petitions by judgment
and order dated 11.09.2012. Operative portion of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is as follows: -
"...These writ petitions are thus allowed. The purported
selection made by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission in
pursuance to the advertisement No.6/2006, result whereof was
published on 11.04.2010 relating to category No.23 for the
posts of PTIs, is hereby quashed. A direction is issued to the
Haryana Staff Selection Commission to hold a fresh selection,
in accordance with law, within a period of five months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Photocopies of the original noting files produced in
Court as also the purported criteria laid down by the
Commission dated 03.08.2008 have been got prepared, kept
in a sealed cover and placed on the records of CWP No.15656
of 2010 to be opened only on Court orders. Produced original
records be handed over to Mr. Harish Rathee, learned Senior
Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1113
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASH)
JUDGE
11.09.2012"
10. LPA No.1594 of 2012 and several other LPAs were filed
before the Division Bench challenging the judgment dated 11.09.2012.
Apart from LPAs filed by selected candidates, few of the LPAs were
also filed by some of the writ petitioners they being partly dissatisfied by
the order of the Single Judge as the issue of ineligibility and disqualification
of selected candidates expressly raised by them have not been gone into
by learned Single Judge.
11. The State of Haryana as well as Haryana Staff Selection
Commission had also filed LPA challenging the judgment of the learned
Single Judge. All the LPAs were heard and decided by the Division
Bench vide its judgment dated 30.09.2013. The Division Bench upheld
the order of learned Single Judge. Operative portion of the judgment of
the Division Bench dated 30.09.2013 is as follows: -
"54) For the reasons afore-stated, we uphold the decision of
the learned Single Judge and consequently: -
i)
LPA Nos. 1841 and 1903 of 2012 filed by the
Haryana Staff Selection Commission are dismissed
with cost of Rs.50,000/- each to be deposited with
the High Court Legal Services Committee within a
period of one month;
ii)
LPA No.1562, 1831 to 1839, 1842 to 1855, 1879 to
1902, 1904 to 1917, 1997, 2002, 2028 of 2012; 248
& 262 of 2013 jointly filed by the State of Haryana
and the Haryana Staff Selection Commission are
dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-in each case to be
deposited with the High Court Legal Services
Committee within one month;
iii)
LPA Nos. 1555,1557,1592,1594, 1856 to 1860, 1870
to 1878, 1918 to 1920, 1950 of 2012; 529 of 2013
filed by the selected candidates are dismissed with
cost of Rs.10,000/- each to be deposited in the High
Court Lawyer Welfare Fund within one month;
RAMJIT SINGH KARDAM & ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
iv)
LPA Nos. 1595, 1760,1967,2194 of 2012; and 303
of 2013 filed by the writ petitioners are disposed of
in the light of the observations made in para-53 of
this Court;
55) Photostat copies of the four files containing original
notings and decisions taken by the Commission or its
Chairman from time to time, the decision dated 03.08.2008
have been retained and shall be kept as a part of the judicial
record. The original record be returned to the Commission
under receipt.
56) Ordered accordingly. Dasti."
12. These appeals have been filed by the selected candidates
whose selection had been set aside by learned Single Judge and affirmed
by the Division Bench. The State of Haryana as well as Haryana Staff
Selection Commission had also filed Special Leave to Appeal being
SLP(Civil) No. 11143-11210 of 2014 which was disposed of by this Court
by following order dated 30.07.2014: -
"Delay condoned.
The issue arising in this group of special leave petitions is
pending before this Court in SLP(C) No.35373 of 2013 etc.
filed at the instance of selected candidates. All the questions
raised herein would be open to the petitioner State to be urged
in SLP(C) No. 35373 of 2013.