1964 (7) TMI 55 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court vacates High Court order due to erroneous concession, dismisses appeals and writ petitions.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and vacated the High Court's order, dismissing the petitions. The Court found that the High Court's judgment was ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Public Service Commission's criteria for declaring candidates successful at the examination.2. Legality of the viva voce test and its criteria.3. Composition and functioning of the examining body during the viva voce test.4. High Court's directive to include certain petitioners in the list of successful candidates.5. Validity of the appointment of candidates selected for promotion.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Public Service Commission's Criteria for Declaring Candidates Successful:The High Court held that the Public Service Commission (PSC) adopted a criterion for declaring candidates successful, which was not found in the Recruitment Rules. Specifically, the PSC fixed 45% qualifying marks for scheduled castes and 55% for other candidates in the viva voce test. The High Court ruled that only the Governor had the power to prescribe such qualifications under Article 234 and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and this power could not be delegated to the PSC. Therefore, the list of successful candidates was invalid as it violated the Rules.2. Legality of the Viva Voce Test and Its Criteria:The High Court found a discrepancy between the notification calling for applications and the schedule to the Recruitment Rules. The notification indicated that the viva voce test would consider the candidate's general knowledge, grasp of principles of law, personality, and suitability. However, the Recruitment Rules only mentioned general knowledge and grasp of principles of law. The High Court held that the PSC had no power to assess 'personality and suitability,' and thus, the viva voce test was not conducted in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.3. Composition and Functioning of the Examining Body During the Viva Voce Test:The High Court ruled that the examination body, as constituted under Rule 6(4), included the Public Service Commission and the Law Secretary. However, during the viva voce test, one of the members of the Commission was not present. The High Court held that the assessment of marks by an incomplete body was invalid and not saved by the Mysore Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business and Additional Functions) Act, 1959, which states that the proceedings of the Commission shall not be invalidated by any vacancy or absence of a member.4. High Court's Directive to Include Certain Petitioners in the List of Successful Candidates:The High Court directed the PSC to include the names of six petitioners in the list of candidates suitable for promotion, in addition to the ten candidates already selected. The Supreme Court found this directive unsustainable, stating that the High Court could quash the list if it found irregularities but could not order the inclusion of specific individuals. The High Court's order was in the nature of mandamus, which should compel the performance of a public duty but not dictate specific inclusions in the list.5. Validity of the Appointment of Candidates Selected for Promotion:The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's earlier judgment did not challenge the validity of the list of candidates selected for promotion. The High Court had directed a fresh viva voce test for the competitive examination candidates but not for those selected for promotion. The Supreme Court clarified that the selection for promotion was based on interviews conducted in 1961 and not on the marks obtained in the 1962 viva voce test. Therefore, the High Court's assumption that the selection was based on different standards by different bodies was incorrect. The Supreme Court held that the selection was valid and based on the performance at the interview and the general record of service.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals (Nos. 533 to 538 of 1963) and vacated the High Court's order, dismissing the petitions. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment was largely influenced by a concession made by the Advocate General, which was contrary to the record. The appeals (Nos. 960 to 968 of 1963) were dismissed as the correctness of the High Court's view was not challenged, and the issue had become academic. The writ petitions (Nos. 61, 62, and 152 of 1963) challenging the validity of the appointment of candidates for promotion were also dismissed.