2014 (4) TMI 1294 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns decision on Medical Laboratory Technicians selection process, emphasizes importance of fair procedure

Ranjan Kumar and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in a case concerning the selection process for Medical Laboratory Technicians (MLT). The Court found the High ... Validity of sections made in respect of the post, namely, Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) - all appointees not impleaded - procedure adopted for selection was vitiated as the candidates were selected only by interview without holding any written test though the past practice was to conduct an examination - HELD THAT:- In the case at hand neither any rule nor Regulation was challenged. In fact, we have been apprised that at the time of selection and appointment there was no rule or Regulation. A procedure used to be adopted by the administrative instructions. That apart, it was not a large body of appointees but only 182 appointees. Quite apart from that the persons who were impleaded, were not treated to be in the representative capacity. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to some authorities. In KU. RASHMI MISHRA VERSUS MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMISSION & ORS. [2006 (10) TMI 485 - SUPREME COURT], after referring to Prabodh Verma [[1984 (7) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT]] and Indu Shekhar Singh [2006 (4) TMI 565 - SUPREME COURT], the Court took note of the fact that when no steps had been taken in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the principles analogous thereto all the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties in the writ petition. It was further observed that the number of selected candidates was not many and there was no difficulty for the Appellant to implead them as parties in the proceeding. Ultimately, the Court held that when all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition, no relief could be granted to the Appellant therein. In Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. [2008 (11) TMI 718 - SUPREME COURT], this Court approved the view expressed by the tribunal which had opined that for absence of selected and appointed candidates and without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the selection could not be set aside. Thus, in such a case when all the appointees were not impleaded, the writ petition was defective and hence, no relief could have been granted to the writ Petitioners. When the Respondents had appeared in the interview knowing fully well the process, they could not have resiled later on or taken a somersault saying that the procedure as adopted by the department was vitiated - HELD THAT:- It is apt to refer to the principle stated in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. [1986 (3) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT], in the said case a three-Judge Bench, taking note of the fact that the Petitioner in the writ petition had appeared for the examination without protest and filed the petition only after he realized that he would not succeed in the examination, held that the writ Petitioner should not have been granted any relief by the High Court. In Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vinod Kumar and Ors. [2007 (9) TMI 700 - SUPREME COURT], the Court reiterated the principle that it is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. The twin contentions proponed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant deserve acceptation - Appeal allowed. Issues:Challenge to the judgment and order of the High Court invalidating the selection process for the post of Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) based on the absence of a written test and the hurried manner of conducting interviews.Analysis:1. The judgment under consideration pertains to the challenge against the High Court's decision to quash the appointment of several individuals as Medical Laboratory Technicians (MLT) due to the absence of a written test in the selection process. The High Court found the selection procedure to be flawed as candidates were chosen solely through interviews, deviating from the usual practice of conducting examinations followed by interviews. The High Court emphasized the technical nature of the posts, highlighting the necessity of holding an examination for selection.2. The appellants contended that the High Court's decision was in violation of the principles of natural justice as most appellants were not made respondents in the case. Citing the case law of Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of ensuring all parties affected by a judgment are duly represented in the legal proceedings to uphold fairness and natural justice.3. The absence of a formal rule or regulation governing the selection process at the time of appointments was noted. The Supreme Court referenced previous cases such as Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P. and Km. Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission, emphasizing the necessity of impleading all relevant parties in cases challenging selection processes to ensure a fair and comprehensive legal proceeding.4. Further, the Supreme Court referred to various legal precedents such as J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India, emphasizing the importance of impleading all relevant parties, especially in service-related matters, to avoid passing adverse orders without affording an opportunity for affected parties to present their case.5. The Court also addressed the argument that candidates who participated in the interview process cannot later challenge the validity of the procedure. Citing cases like Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, the Court highlighted the principle that candidates who willingly participate in a selection process cannot subsequently dispute its fairness.6. Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the contentions raised by the appellants, concluding that the High Court's decision was flawed due to the non-impleadment of all relevant parties and the principle that candidates who participated in the interview process cannot later challenge its validity. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the judgments of both the Division Bench and the Single Judge were set aside, with no order as to costs.