Supreme Court of India
AVINASH C. & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. on 4 April 2018
688
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
A
AVINASH C. & ORS.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3543-3555 of 2018)
B
APRIL 04, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Service Law – Selection process – Annulment of – Allegationof demand of bribes from candidates – Matter arose out ofselection conducted by the Karnataka Public Service CommissionC(KPSC) pursuant to notification for filling up posts of Group ‘A’and Group ‘D’ in the State – There were complaints ofmalpractices and irregularities in the conduct of examinations aswell as interviews – FIR was lodged against Chairman, Memberand some officials of the KPSC – On receipt of interim report ofDCID, State Government directed annulment of evaluation of writtenexamination as well as personality test – However, KPSC publishedthe select list – The State withdrew the requisition for appointments– Order challenged by the successful candidates before Tribunal,which quashed the decision of the State Government and directedappointment of the selected candidates – High Court held thatETribunal committed error in directing appointment of personsvalidity of whose selection was seriously doubted by theGovernment – Propriety of – Held: Proper – High Court hasreferred to material on record in the form of call details betweencandidates and members of the KPSC – All the members whoFinterviewed the candidates awarded exactly the same marks toparticular candidates – There was no objective assessment by theindividual members – 566 candidates were awarded same markswhich appeared to be pre-determined – Digital video recorder inthe KPSC building was replaced to destroy evidence – No groundto interfere with the view of the High Court that the selection couldGnot have been sustained – If selection is found to be tainted in anymanner, it is always open to the concerned authority to annul suchselection to maintain purity of the selection process – It may notalways be necessary to segregate tainted and untainted candidateswhen the process itself is tainted – Moreover, at pre-appointment H
stage, decision to cancel the selection process can be interferedonly if it is patently arbitrary, malafide or illegal – In instant case,the High Court has rightly applied these parameters and found nocase for interference with decision to annul selection.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3543-3555 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2018 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bengaluru in W. P. (C) Nos. 13617 to 13627 of 2017and W.P. No.14529 of 2017.
Devadatt Kamat, Addl. Adv. Gen., V. Giri, Guru Krishna Kumar,Raju Ramachandran, Sajan Poovayya, Nagmohan Das, M. B. Nargund,Sr. Advs., Nishanth Patil, Ms. K. Parameshwar, Pithneesh M. K.,Prasanna Mohan, B. L. Acharya, Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, Mrinal Shankar,Priyasarshi Banerjee, Saransh Kumar, Saransh Jain, Meka VenkataramaKrishna, Ishwar Mohanty, Balaji Srinivasan, S. N. Bhat, V. N. Raghupathy,Rajesh Inamdar, Javedur Rahman, Parikshit P. Angadi, Aditya Bhat,P. Singh, Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Rekha Chandra Sekhar, H. ChandraSekhar, Vikram Phadke, Ashwin V. Kotemath, Mrs. S. Usha Reddy,Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have enteredappearance. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed, we donot consider it necessary to issue notice to all the parties who are notrepresented.
2. The matter arises out of Selection conducted by the KarnatakaPublic Service Commission (“KPSC”) pursuant to Notification dated3.11.2011 for filling up 362 posts of the Group ‘A’ and Group ‘D’ in theState of Karnataka. Examinations were conducted on 22.04.2012. Writtentests for mains were conducted between 15.12.2012 and 16.01.2013.Interviews were held between 01-04-2013 and 27.05.2013.
3. There were complaints of mal-practices and irregularities inthe conduct of examinations as well as the interviews. It was inter aliaalleged that there were demands of bribes from candidates. The FIRwas lodged against Chairman, Member and some officials of the KPSC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AOn receipt of the interim report of CID dated 10[th] September, 2013, theState Government on 15[th] December, 2013 directed annulment ofevaluation of written examination as well as the personality test. TheKPSC however, published the select list. The State Governmentwithdrew the requisition for appointments on 14.08.2014.
4. The above order was challenged by the successful candidatesbefore the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide orderdated 19[th] October, 2016 quashed the decision of the State Governmentand directed appointment of the selected candidates. Some selectedcandidates have been given appointments.
B
C5. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court.The High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of the Tribunal.The High Court concluded thus:
“55. Resultantly, these writ petitions eminently deserve to beallowed and accordingly:
Da) Writ Petition Nos. 13617-13627/2017 & 14529/2017 and WritPetition No. 11342/2017 are allowed;
b) Common order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Karnataka StateAdministrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Applications No. 6268/2014to 6395/2014 c/w 6432/2014 to 6444/2014, 6446/2014 to 6459/E2014, 6597/2014 & 6598/2014, 7464/2014, 7941/2014 to 7946/2014,7950/2014 to 7966/2014, 7967/2014, 7968/2014, 7969/2014, 9112/2014 to 9126/2014, 9592/2014 to 9610/2014 and 8298/2015, isquashed.
c) Un-Official Note, Un-Official Note No. 139 CASu 139 SaLoSaF2016 dated 17.3.2017, issued by Deputy Secretary, DPAR Services,Government of Karnataka, is quashed;
d) Official Memorandum, Official Memorandum No. 19457 DMA32 KaMAS 2016-17 dated 27.03.2017, issued by Director,Municipal Administration, Bengaluru, is quashed; G
e) All orders of appointment/s issued pursuant to Final Select Listdated 21.03.2014 prepared by KPSC are declared illegal and shallstand quashed; and
f) Government Order, Government Order No. CaaSuE 53 SaLoSa2014, Bangalore dated 14.8.2014, withdrawing requisitions issued H
to KPSC for selection of Gazetted Probationers for 2011, and toclose selection process, is sustained.”
6. The High Court observed that appointment of ineligible,inefficient or persons of questionable integrity has serious adverse impacton the working of the Government and is anathema to the rule of law.Best selection to Government service was the mandate of theConstitution. No right accrued to candidates merely by being in the selectlist. Thus, the Tribunal was in error in directing appointment of personsvalidity of whose selection was seriously doubted by the Government.
7. We find that the High Court has referred to material on recordin the form of call details between candidates and members of the KPSC.All the members who interviewed the candidates awarded exactly thesame marks to particular candidates. There was no objective assessmentby individual members. There appeared to be extraneous reasons inawarding the marks. 566 candidates were awarded same marks whichappeared to be pre-determined. Digital video recorder in the KPSCbuilding was replaced to destroy evidence. In this view of the matter,we do not find any ground to interfere with the view of the High Courtthat the selection could not have been sustained. If the selection isfound to be tainted in any manner, it is always open to the concernedauthority to annul such selection to maintain purity of the selection process.It may not always be necessary to segregate tainted and untaintedcandidates when the process itself is tainted. Moreover, at pre-appointment stage, decision to cancel the selection process can beinterfered only if it is patently arbitrary, malafide or illegal. In the presentcase, the High Court has rightly applied these parameters and found nocase for interference with the decision to annul the selection.
8. Learned counsel for some of the parties submitted that thewritten examination is not vitiated by any irregularity and the same canbe sustained. Interviews can be held again.
9. Since this contention does not appear to have been raised beforethe High Court we permit this contention to be now raised by either ofthe parties by moving the High Court within two weeks from today. Ifsuch an application is moved, the High Court may examine the same onmerits. If the High Court finds that the written examination is free fromany blemish, the High Court may consider restoration of the result of thewritten examination and further selection process to be conducted. It A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Awill also be open to the High Court to direct re-evaluation of scripts of allthe candidates or to sustain the cancellation of result of the writtenexamination so that fresh selection can be held. We do not express anyopinion on merits of the rival contentions which will be open to be goneinto by the High Court. The High Court may take a decision in the matterat the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the dateBthe High Court is moved.
The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C
Ankit Gyan
Appeals disposed of.
D
E
F
G
H