Supreme Court of India
RESHMA SULTANA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. on 10 May 2022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
A
RESHMA SULTANA
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3484 of 2022)
MAY 10, 2022
B[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Selection – Selection process – Fraud, collusionand manipulation – Post of full-time College Lecturer in Urdu subject– Single Judge of High Court in a writ petition set aside theappointment of appellant, finding it to be vitiated by fraud andCmanipulation and thereafter passed an order directing to forwardnecessary documents and proposals to the concerned authoritiesfor purpose of appointing respondent no.10-original writ petitioner– Judgment of Single Judge confirmed by Division Bench of HighCourt in writ appeal – Whether after holding the appointment ofDappellant to be not valid, the High Court could have thereafterdirected for appointment of respondent No.10-original writ petitioner – Held: Once the entire selection process was found to be vitiateddue to fraud, collusion and manipulation, thereafter the Single judgeof High Court ought to have passed the order for a fresh selectionafter following the due process of selection as required – Moreover,Erespondent no.10 is also seeking appointment pursuant to the veryselection process/recruitment process which is found to be fraudulentand suffers from manipulation of record – Under the circumstances,direction issued by the Single Judge, which was not interfered withby the Division Bench directing to forward the documents ofFrespondent No.10 to consider his case for appointment isunsustainable – Fresh selection process be initiated for filling upthe post of Urdu Lecturer after following due process undersupervision of respondent No.2-Commissioner of CollegiateEducation.
GPartly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The Single Judge of the High Court has, onappreciation of entire material on record, specifically found thatthe entire selection process was vitiated by fraud and there wasa manipulation of the record and no resolution, on the basis of H
which the appellant was appointed was in existence and therewas an interpolation. Once the entire selection process was foundto be vitiated due to fraud, collusion and manipulation, thereafterthe Single judge ought to have passed the order for a freshselection after following the due process of selection as required.It is to be noted that the original writ petitioner is also seekingappointment pursuant to the very selection process/recruitmentprocess which is found to be fraudulent and suffers frommanipulation of record. Under the circumstances, the directionissued by the Single Judge, which was not interfered with by theDivision Bench directing to forward the documents of therespondent No.10– original writ petitioner to consider his casefor appointment is unsustainable. [Paras 6, 6.1][188-E-F, H;189-A-B]
2. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside theappointment of the appellant by the Single Judge confirmed bythe Division Bench is concerned, apart from the fact that thisCourt had issued a limited notice, even on merits also andconsidering the fact that the entire selection process/recruitmentprocess was found to be fraudulent and it was found that therewas a manipulation in the resolution and as such no resolutionwas passed to appoint the appellant, it cannot be said that theSingle Judge committed any error in quashing and setting asidethe appointment of the appellant. The same has been rightyconfirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 7][189-B-D]
3. However, that part of the direction/order passed by theSingle Judge by which the Single Judge directed to forwardnecessary documents and proposals to the concerned authoritiesfor the purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject, which is not interfered with bythe Division Bench of the High Court is hereby quashed and setaside. A fresh selection process be initiated for filling up the postof Urdu Lecturer after following due process as required and thesame shall be monitored and supervised by respondent No.2 -Commissioner of Collegiate Education and this exercise becompleted preferably within a period of three months.[Para 8][189-E-G]
AB
C
D
E
FG
H
ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3484of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2020 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in W.P. No.100066 of 2020 (S-RES).
Ms. Amrita Sharma, Darpan K. M., Hetu Arora Sethi, Advs. forBthe Appellant.
Rajesh Mahale, V. N. Raghupathy, Mohd. Iqbal Khairati, GauravAgrawal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byCM. R. SHAH, J.
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.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad, in W.A. No. 100066 of 2020by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the saidDappeal preferred by the appellant herein – original respondent No.10,the appellant herein – original respondent No.10 - Reshma Sultana haspreferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:- 2.1 That respondent No. 10 herein – Ilyas Ahmed Patwegar –Eoriginal writ petitioner applied for the post of Urdu Teacher in NehruArts, Science and Commerce Degree College, Hubli, run by Anjuman-E-Islam Education Board. He was appointed on 1.7.2002. Later, anadvertisement was published in the local newspaper on 26.8.2007 callingfor the filling up of posts of Urdu Lecturers in the same College. TheForiginal writ petitioner also submitted his application.
Interviews for different posts were conducted on 23.10.2007. TheManagement informed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education thatin respect of Urdu subject, it was resolved to appoint a highlyknowledgeable subject expert and to seek his opinion before making anyGappointment and accordingly Urdu Teacher’s appointment waspostponed. On 13.3.2009 the Management informed the original writpetitioner that the appellant herein - Reshma Sultana has been appointedas Urdu Lecturer. The management sought approval for her appointmentfrom the second respondent - Commissioner of Collegiate Education.The second respondent - Commissioner of Collegiate Education soughtH
management’s explanation as to how the appellant herein could havebeen appointed without seeking opinion of a subject expert. However, inJanuary 2010, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education approved theappointment of the appellant herein.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved, the original writ petitioner filed the writpetition before the learned Single Judge. By a detailed judgment andorder, the learned Single Judge quashed the appointment of the originalrespondent No. 10 – appellant herein and also issued further directionsto the management to forward necessary documents and proposals tothe concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writpetitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge quashing the appointment of theappellant as an Urdu Lecturer and issuing the direction to forwardnecessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for thepurpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturerin Urdu subject, the appellant herein preferred the writ appeal beforethe Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order, the DivisionBench has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgmentand order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the writ appeal andconfirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge,quashing the appointment of the appellant herein as an Urdu Lecturer,the original respondent No. 10 before the learned Single Judge and theappellant before the Division Bench of the High Court, whoseappointment has been set aside by the learned Single Judge confirmedby the Division Bench of High Court has preferred the present appeal.
3. While issuing notice on 08.01.2021, this Court passed thefollowing order:- “XXXXXXXXXX
Issue notice limited to the question as to whether the High Courtin a writ petition, after holding the appointment of the petitioner to be notvalid, could have directed for appointment of respondent No.10 whowas neither recommended by the Committee nor approved by thecompetent authority for the selection in pursuance of 2007 recruitment,returnable within six weeks.”
A
B
C
D
EF
GH
4. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for theconsideration of this Court is whether after holding the appointment ofthe appellant to be not valid, the High Court could have thereafter directedfor appointment of respondent No.10 herein – original writ petitioner,who was neither recommended by the Committee nor approved by thecompetent authority for the selection in pursuance of 2007 recruitment.
A
B
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 10herein – original writ petitioner has vehemently submitted that he is betterqualified than the appellant herein. It is submitted that the appellant hasonly passed SLET whereas respondent No.10 – original writ petitionerhas passed both NET and SLET; the original writ petitioner has alsoCscored 65% marks in regular M.A. It is further submitted that the original writ petitioner has twenty-five years of experience in teaching the post-graduate students, whereas the appellant has no experience in teachingthe post-graduate students. Apart from that, the original writ petitionerhas been awarded Ph.D. in Urdu in February, 2021 by the University ofDMumbai. It is the case on behalf of the respondent No.10 herein – originalwrit petitioner that therefore while quashing and setting aside theappointment of the appellant herein – the learned Single Judge has rightlydirected to forward necessary documents and proposals to the concernedauthorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as afull-time Lecturer in Urdu subject.E
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties, we have considered the fact that the learned Single Judge has,on appreciation of entire material on record, specifically found that theentire selection process was vitiated by fraud and there was amanipulation of the record and no resolution, on the basis of which theFappellant was appointed was in existence and there was an interpolation.Thereafter the learned Single Judge while quashing and setting aside theappointment of the appellant, which was vitiated by fraud and manipulationetc. could not have further passed an order directing to forward necessarydocuments and proposals to the concerned authorities for the purpose ofGappointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdusubject.
6.1 Once the entire selection process was found to be vitiateddue to fraud, collusion and manipulation, thereafter the learned Singlejudge ought to have passed the order for a fresh selection after followingHthe due process of selection as required. It is to be noted that the original writ petitioner is also seeking appointment pursuant to the very selectionprocess/recruitment process which is found to be fraudulent and suffersfrom manipulation of record. Under the circumstances, the directionissued by the learned Single Judge, which was not interfered with by theDivision Bench directing to forward the documents of the respondentNo.10 herein – original writ petitioner to consider his case for appointmentis unsustainable.
7. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the appointmentof the appellant herein by the learned Single Judge confirmed by theDivision Bench is concerned, apart from the fact that this Court hadissued a limited notice as observed hereinabove, even on merits also andconsidering the fact that the entire selection process/recruitment processwas found to be fraudulent and it was found that there was a manipulationin the resolution and as such no resolution was passed to appoint theappellant, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge committed anyerror in quashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant herein.The same has been righty confirmed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe Division Bench and that of the learned Single Judge quashing andsetting aside the appointment of the appellant as Urdu Lecturer is herebyconfirmed. However, that part of the direction/order passed by thelearned Single Judge by which the learned Single directed to forwardnecessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for thepurpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturerin Urdu subject, which is not interfered with by the Division Bench ofthe High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. A fresh selection processbe initiated for filling up the post of Urdu Lecturer after following dueprocess as required and the same shall be monitored and supervised byrespondent No.2 herein - Commissioner of Collegiate Education andthis exercise be completed preferably within a period of three monthsfrom today.
With this, the present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaidextent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shallbe no order as to costs.
Appeal partly allowed.
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H