TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvocates. They have chosen to pursue the writ proceedings, in person. Yet, they have filed numerous pleadings. Many of those are repetitive and not on the format prevalent, here. Therefore, at the beginning of the hearing itself, we sought a clarification (from both the petitioners), as to the documents and affidavits they seek to rely. It was then stated by the petitioners, they would be pressing the Writ Petition as supported by the documents and affidavit appended thereto as also the Ist Supplementary Affidavit dated 23.9.2020, running into 253 pages, the IInd Supplementary Affidavit dated 4.12.2021, running into 26 pages, and the Rejoinder Affidavit dated 14.3.2022, running into 25 pages. Of other affidavits, they specifically stated, such documents came to be filed erroneously. No reliance may be placed on them. 4. On 10.05.2016, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the High Court) advertised the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service 2016 Examination to fill up 72 vacancies in all. 37 of those vacancies fell under the Unreserved category; 15 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste category; 19 vacancies were reserved for Other Backward C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Rule 18(1) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), the Committee should have called for interview only such candidates who may have clearly qualified for the Interview after scrutiny of their forms and the Written Examination. Respondent no.4 (Sandeep Gupta) and respondent no.5 (Pratima) were only permitted to provisionally participate at the Written Examination. However, their results were required to be retained in sealed cover, under order dated 22.07.2016, passed by the Supreme Court in the case of respondent no.4 i.e., Sandeep Gupta vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through Its Registrar General [Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 594 of 2016] and another order to the similar effect dated 18.7.2016, passed in the case of respondent no.5, by a division bench of this Court in Service Bench No. 13984 of 2016 (Pratima vs Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Thru R.G. & Ors.). Since no further order was passed, either by the Supreme Court or by this Court to allow either respondent no.4 or respondent no.5 to participate in the Interview, the Committee erred in allowing those candidates an opportunity to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners, for that reason, they would also be qualified for appointment. Here reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Pranav Verma And others Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2019, 617 of 2019 and 651 of 2019, decided on 13.12.2019). 9. Sixth, it has been further submitted, respondent No. 5 had earlier filed a writ petition before the High Court. While that writ petition was kept pending, she instituted a parallel proceeding by filing I.A. No. 42562 of 2017 before the Supreme Court. That she may have never done. The High Court also did not inform the Supreme Court about the pendency of that writ petition. Consequently, she was illegally accommodated in the final select list. That itself has been cited to be a malicious illegality committed by the High Court. 10. Last, it has been submitted, another candidate Sri Krishna Kumar, judicial officer was allowed to participate in the examination in two categories. First, as an advocate and second as a judicial officer. The same was wholly contrary to the Rules. In fact, by allowing such participation the Committee completel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the original record of the meeting of the Committee dated 23.1.2017, which has also been shown to the petitioners during hearing, itself. It will be referred to a little later. 15. In the first place, the postponement of interviews by one week, per se does not raise any doubt as to the fairness of the procedure adopted. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were thereby prevented from participating at the Interview. As a result of the Written Examination, 61 candidates were found provisionally successful and accordingly they were invited for the Interview. The lone candidate who did not appear at the Interview conducted (on the postponed dates), has not even complained. Thus, no prejudice was caused to the petitioners or to any candidate by such postponement. No other or new candidate was called for Interview other than the candidates who were originally invited for interview scheduled to be held on 22.04.2017 and 23.04.2017. No candidate was deprived of that opportunity, either. 16. Submission of the petitioners that the ineligible candidates had been invited for the Interview contrary to the Rule 18(1) of the Rules, has been met on the strength of the proviso to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank Samiti, (2018) 9 SCC 472. 20. It is in the very nature of things - an Interview Board may determine the suitability of a candidate, in lesser time. Being experts, the members of the Board act in that capacity, to test the suitability of the candidates before them. Unless any patent illegality or error is shown to have existed in the process adopted by the concerned Board, in granting that Interview to either of the petitioners, no inference may be drawn that a candidate could not have been found suitable, because the interview of any of the candidate got over in less than 25-30 minutes. Here, he has also emphasized, there are no pleadings made in the writ petition to establish that the interview of the present petitioners got over in less than 25-30 minutes or in 8 minutes as has been orally contended by the petitioners. 21. Next, it has been submitted, in the original result declared on 18.08.2017, names of 12 judicial officers were provisionally included. Upon pronouncement of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor vs Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, (2020) SCC OnLine SCC 213, it became necessary to revise that result. Since, the 12 judicial officers (provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tablish - even a single person may have been added or deleted to the final list of candidates than those originally called for the Interview test, it would be wholly unreasonable and far-fetched an argument to acknowledge (for any serious consideration), that such postponement was meant to cause any undue benefit to any individual. 25. The fact that the respondent may have taken a stand in the counter affidavit that such postponement was occasioned by certain administrative work involving the Chairman of the Committee, which fact is disputed on the strength of information received by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the Registry of the Supreme Court, is not of such quality or tenor as may require this Court to even suspect that there was any gross irregularity or mala fide, occasioning the postponement of the Interview test. It not being the case of the petitioners that any individual or other person came to be called/refused interview, occasioned by that postponement of the Interview test scheduled for 22-23 April 2017, that ground of challenge remains imaginary and sensational, yet completely unfounded. The issue of the exactness or even the corre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nimum 45% marks in the preliminary examination subject to 20 times of the number of vacancies category-wise i.e. General, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. (2) In assessing the merits of a candidate the Selection Committee shall have due regard to his professional ability, character, personality and health. (3) The Selection Committee shall make a preliminary selection and submit the record of all candidates to the Chief Justice and recommend the names of the candidates in order of merit who, in its opinion, are suitable for appointment to the Service. (4) The Court shall examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee and having regard to the number of direct recruits to be taken, prepare a list of elected candidates in order of merit and forward the same to the Governor." 28. Also, for ready reference, Appendix 'G' to the Rules may be extracted as below: "APPENDIX 'G' [See Rule 18] Syllabus prescribed for the recruitment of the officers in Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. The Examination for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service will include the following su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Questions set will be restricted to the field covered by - Indian Penal Code, Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. U.P. Municipalities Act, U.P. Panchaytraj Act, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, together with Rules, framed under the aforesaid Acts. Answer to the questions of Local Laws will be compulsory. Question pertaining to penal Laws will be of 50 ** marks, whereas that of Revenue and Local Laws will be of 150 marks .** Clarification -The candidates will have a choice to answer General Knowledge and Law papers either in Hindi or in English. Paper No. 6-Interview The interview will be of 200 marks-The suitability of the candidate for employment in the U.P. Higher Judicial Service will be tested with reference to his merit giving due regard to his ability, character, personality, and physique. Notes- (i) The candidates securing minimum aggregate 45% marks in the Written Examination shall be called to appear in the interview subject to maximum thrice the number of vacancies category-w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Backward Classes shall be admitted to the Main Written Examination." 32. Therefore, to our mind, the Rules and the Advertisement speak of four events to test the suitability of any candidate for selection at the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. (i) first, a Preliminary Examination, is conducted to determine the suitability of the candidates to be admitted at the next stage/Written Examination. There is no dispute between the parties with respect to that examination. (ii) second, is the scrutiny of the application forms. (iii) third, is the Written Examination. (iv) fourth, is the conduct of the Interview test. 33. At the same time, both - the proviso to Rule 18(1-A) of the Rules and the Advertisement use the term - "Main Written Examination" to prescribe the eligibility to the Written Examination (provided under Rule 18(1) of the Rules), in terms of minimum marks to be obtained at the Preliminary Examination. Therefore, upon a co-joint reading of the Rules and the Advertisement, the "Main Written Examination" may only refer to Written Examination covering the five subjects specified under schedule 'G'. 34. Further, that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt-petitioner and Sri Upendra Nath Misra, learned counsel appearing for the High Court. The petitioner through this writ petition has prayed that she may be permitted to appear in the preliminary examination as well as in the final examination, inter alia, on the grounds stated in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is engaging the attention of the apex Court in Writ Petition (s) (Civil) No(s).414 of 2016, Dr. Anil Kumar Singh and others vs. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and another, along with SLP(C) No.15750 of 2016 and other connected Special Leave Petitions and the apex Court has passed the following order :- "W.P. (C) No.414 of 2016. W.P. (C) No.405 of 2016. W.P. (C) No.423 of 2016. SLP (C) No.15764 of 2016: Pending further orders from this Court, the petitioners shall be permitted to appear in the preliminary examination for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service scheduled to be held on 31st July, 2016. In case they qualify in the same they shall also be permitted to appear in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2016 (Main). The result of the Main Examination insofar as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Main Examination be kept in sealed cover however, subject to those respondents qualifying the Preliminary Examination. 38. Therefore, to our mind, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were permitted to participate further - both at the third and fourth events of the selection process, noted above, subject to their qualifying at the first stage (as explicitly provided under the interim orders). Those two events taken together, constituted the main examination, described under the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court and a coordinate bench of this Court. In absence of any restraint placed in those judicial orders, to prevent the participation of the persons (in whose favour those orders had been passed), at the Interview test, or to permit them to appear only at the Main Written Examination, the submission advanced by the petitioners, to the contrary, carries no weight. It is rejected. 39. The phrase "Main Written Examination" used in the proviso to Rule 18 (1A) of the Rules and the Advertisement must be read to mean the second event of the selection process, only i.e., the Written Examination. The word "Main" prefixed to the expression "Written Examination" (in the proviso to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent Nos.4 and 5 and other similarly situated persons to provisionally participate at both stages of the "main examination" and not at the "main written examination", alone. Read plainly, those interim orders included within their ambit, both, the Written Examination, and the Interview test, of course, subject to suitability being first earned at the Main Written Examination. However, in view of the further stipulation contained in that order that their results shall be kept in a sealed cover, they could neither have been declared successful nor they could not have been granted appointment, except with the leave of the Supreme Court/this Court (on the judicial side). 43. During hearing, we have also been taken through the contents of the original resolution of the Committee dated 23.3.2017. Perusal of the same reveals that following decisions were taken: "1. As per the combined merit list prepared by the Computer Section, number of candidates, who could secure minimum qualifying 45% marks or more in aggregate, category wise, in the main Written Examination, out of 1603 candidates, (declared successful in the Preliminary Examination, under ratio of 1:20 category wis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....who were called to appear provisionally in the main Written Examination, 2016 over and above the ratio 1:20 in their respective categories, in pursuance with the orders of the Hon'ble Courts, 15 candidates have secured minimum qualifying marks or above. Thus, 15 candidates are called to appear provisionally in the interview. A list of such Judicial Officer/petitioners is made part of this resolution as Annexure-F. The result of such 15 candidates shall be subject to final out come of the petitions filed by them. 7. Out of 10 candidates who are Advocates and have been permitted by the order of the Hon'ble Courts called to appear in the Main Written Examination, 2016 provisionally in their respective categories over and above the ratio 1:20, only 02 candidates have secured minimum qualifying marks or above. Thus, 02 candidates be called to appear provisionally in the interview and the list of such 02 candidate/petitioners is made part of this resolution as Annexure -G. The result of such 02 candidates shall be subject to final out come of the petitions filed by them. Thus, out of above 45 Judicial Officers/petitioners (point no. 6 & 7) permitted by judicial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... called to appear (provisionally) in the interview of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Direct Recruitment Main Written Examination, 2016 along with their names and category shall be uploaded on the website of this Court along with relevant instructions and details of interview, indicating the candidates who are permitted by the Courts and declared over and above 1:20. The Interview call letters be made available on the website and a notice to this effect be also uploaded on the website in a manner that the successful candidates may download the same without any problem from the website. The Interview call letters of such candidates be also sent through "Speed Post/Registered Post to their corresponding addresses as available in their application forms of UPHJS-2016. Limited Competitive Departmental Examination, 2016 Under Rule 5(b) of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 Recruitment against 23 vacancies of LCDE was also held along with direct recruitment and the candidates appeared in Law-1, Law-II & Law-III papers. The total number of candidates who had submitted applications for appearing in the LCDE were 113. The attendance in Limited Competitive Exami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A merit list of all 113 candidates permitted to appear in the Limited Competitive Examination, 2016 has been prepared by the Computer Section and the same be kept in closed envelop. It has been reported that only 14 candidates could achieve 45% or more marks (including Sri Krishna Kumar, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Chitrakoot, who has been considered in both the streams viz. Direct and LCDE). A list containing such 14 officer-candidates is made part of this resolution as Annexure-K. Let the aforesaid 14 officers be also called to provisionally appear in the interview on 23.04.2017. Their Roll numbers be also uploaded on the website with a notice regarding the date of interview. Their Interview call letters be made available on the website so that the same shall be downloaded by the candidates and also be sent through 'Speed Post/Registered Post' to the officers. The Committee approves the format of Interview Call Letter for the successful candidates of Limited Competitive Departmental Examination, 2016 and is made part of this resolution as Annexure -L. The Duplicate admit cards be issued to the candidates, in case they fail to receive the same, from 21.04.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as challenge has been raised that the petitioners had not been granted interview for the desired duration of 25-30 minutes, we find while making the Rules, a maximum time limit has been prescribed to assess a candidates' suitability to appointment, by the Committee. It may only be by way of an indication. Currently, it is pegged to 25-30 minutes. However, there is absolutely no stipulation under the Rules and there is complete absence of any law compelling the Interview Board/s to, necessarily spend a minimum of 25-30 minutes with every candidate - to judge his suitability to the appointment sought. Moreover, there is absolutely no prescription in law providing for the consequence of invalidation of any Interview test, if that indicated time limit of 25-30 minutes were to be breached i.e., if the Interview board may proceed to assess the merit of any candidate, in a shorter time. As summarized, in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (supra), the consistent law on the subject has remained - in absence of any consequence prescribed, a provision may not be inferred to be mandatory rather, it may remain directory. 49. Though that decision arose on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind of period of limitation. The provision appears to be directory in nature, which the consumer forums are ordinarily supposed to apply in the proceedings before them. We do not find force in the submission made by the appellant-in-person, that in no event, whatsoever, the reply of the respondent could be taken on record beyond the period of 45 days. The provision is more by way of procedure to achieve the object of speedy disposal of such disputes. It is an expression of "desirability" in strong terms. But it falls short of creating any kind of substantive right in favour of the complainant by reason of which the respondent may be debarred from placing his version in defence in any circumstances whatsoever. It is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time-frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best as it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principles of natural justice as well. The Forum may refuse to extend time beyond 15 days, in view of Section 13(2)(a) of the Act but exceeding the period of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions; the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty; the serious or the trivial consequences, that flow therefrom; and above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered'. If object of the enactment will be defeated by holding the same directory, it will be construed as mandatory, whereas if by holding it mandatory serious general inconvenience will be created to innocent persons without very much furthering the object of enactment, the same will be construed as directory." (pp. 339-40)" 52. Then, the doubt that had arisen in view of another decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 16 SCC 20 was also taken note of. The ratio of Topline (supra) and Kailash (supra) was re- emphasised. 53. In the context of our situation, it cannot be lost sight that the prescription of time limit for the Interview test as mentioned in the Appendix 'G', was 25-30 minutes. Being part of the procedure prescribed to be followed for that test, it may not be read to create a substant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of each interview. It is not only difficult to prescribe such time limit, but it may be undesirable and counterproductive to the efficiency of the selection process to prescribe a mandatory minimum time limit. 58. Thus, the strict prescription of time as claimed by the petitioners and the consequence of its violation is not only, not - prescribed under the Rules but if enforced strictly, it would be wholly undesirable. As suggested by Sri Mishra, it may lead to absurd results where assuming a candidate is unable to answer a single question and is unable to interact productively with the Interview Board, the latter would remain confounded and compelled to be confined in his silent company for 25- 30 minutes, for no good purpose. For the reasons noted above, submission being advanced by the petitioners, on that count is liable to be rejected. 59. Here, we may also note, the pre-existing law on the subject. In Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs State of Haryana & Ors., (1985) 4 SCC 417, in the context of interview conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission to fill up vacancies at Haryana Civil Service (Executive) and other Allied Services. About 1300 candidates were invite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gibility criterion of minimum 45% marks in the Written Examination, only a limited number of candidates at the top of the list shall be called for interview. And this has necessarily to be done because otherwise the viva voce test would be reduced to a farce. It is indeed difficult to see how a viva voce test for properly and satisfactorily measuring the personality of a candidate can be carried out, if over 1300 candidates are to be interviewed for recruitment to a service. If a viva voce test is to be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner, as it must be in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a candidate, the interview must take anything between 10 to 30 minutes. In fact. Herman Finer in his book on Theory and Practice of Modern Government points out that "the interview should last at least half an hour". The Union Public Service Commission making selections for the Indian Administrative Service also interviews a candidate for almost half an hour. Only 11 to 12 candidates are called for interview in a day of 51/2 hours. It is obvious that in the circumstances, it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory viva voce test if suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing consistently followed by the Haryana Public Service Commission over the years and what was done in this case was nothing exceptional. The only question is whether this had any invalidating effect on the selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission". (emphasis supplied) 60. Then, in Satpal vs State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 206, in the context of extremely large number of candidates namely, 400-600 called for the interview on a single date, it was observed as below: "Now so far as the selection process is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board in the High Court wherein it was stated in reply to the allegation in para 5 of the petition that about 400 candidates were called for interview daily_at different places and the interviews commenced from 9.00 a.m. with a lunch break of half an hour, till late hours. It was further stated that sufficient time was devoted in interviewing each and every candidate to adjudge his/her ability and suitability for the said post. Some of the candidates could not even reply to a single question and hence very little time was taken away by s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the High Court, but raised in these appeals for the first time. In the counter filed in this Court, it was refuted. It was stated that they had spent 35 hours in total at the rate of 7 hours per day. That means they spent 5 days in selecting the candidates. The selection is for the Patwaris in the Class III service. The ratio in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88 : 1985 Supp 1 SCR 657] has no application to the facts in this case. Therein the selection was to the Class I service of the State service and sufficient time was required to interview each candidate. In this case, on calculation, we found that on an average three minutes were spent for each candidate for selection. Rule 7 of the Rules provides the qualifications, namely, pass in the Matriculation or Higher Secondary Examination; knowledge in Hindi and Punjabi up to the Middle Standard and good knowledge of rural economy and culture. The educational qualifications are apparent from record and need no interview in this regard. It could be seen that candidates normally hailing from rural backgrounds had presumptively good knowledge of rural economy and culture. Therefore, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Different interviewers have their own notions of good personality for some, it consists more in attractive physical appearance and dress rather than anything else, and with them the breezy and shiny type of candidate scores highly while the rough uncut diamonds may go unappreciated. The atmosphere of the interview is artificial and prevents some candidates from appearing at their best. Its duration is short, the few questions of the hit or miss type, which are put, may fall to reveal the real worth of the candidate." 64. Thus, besides stating that each candidate was interviewed for 5-10 minutes and that the same was inadequate, as it may not have been enough to judge the suitability of each and every candidate selected, no fact pleading has been made to establish either that the petitioners were not subjected to any relevant questioning or that they were summarily relieved by the Interview Board without allowing them to present their best suit - in terms of their ability, character, personality etc. 65. In the absence of the petitioners having discharged that essential burden to prima facie establish before the Court - either that the line of questioning/interaction offered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... absence of any illegality or irregularity shown to exist, its result cannot be doubted on an innocent suspicion voiced by the petitioners, based on their subjective self-assessment, as to their true merit. While the Court is neither required to nor it has made any assessment of the petitioners' individual merit at the Interview test, it has no material or reason to doubt that assessment made by the Committee. 69. The pleadings as to bias and malice are scandalous rather than being objective. Wild and reckless allegations have been made against the Chairman of the Board. The petitioners have given wings to their worst imaginations and fears. As discussed above, the Committee is seen to have acted in accordance with the law in permitting certain candidates to participate at the main examination, provisionally, in compliance of the interim orders of the Supreme Court and this Court. However, all who were ineligible were removed from the final Select List. 70. As to the marks awarded to the individual candidates, upon perusal of the original record, it is disclosed that different marks have been awarded to individual candidates. Of 61 candidates called for the Interview, onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pursuant to the interim order dated 22.07.2016 the candidates were permitted to participate in the selection process. 4. We are informed that only 43 candidates were successful in the final round, which includes the petitioner-Sandeep Gupta and the intervenor-Pratima. As a matter of fact, on account of certain peculiar circumstances, the examination of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service could not be held for the last more than three years, even though, the Rules do not contemplate so. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, intervenor and the respondent/High Court and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we think it fit that this Court should invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent(s)/High Court to clear the results of the petitioner/Sandeep Gupta and the intervenor/Pratima. Since they have otherwise come out successful, they shall be appointed without further delay. 7. We make it clear, in order to avoid any dispute regarding seniority, that the seniority would de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in the result declared on 18.8.2017, 12 (i.e., all excluding respondent Nos. 4 and 5) became ineligible. They were judicial officers whose claim had to be rejected in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor (supra). 77. In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, the provisional result declared on 18.8.2017 had to be revised by the Committee, to exclude the 12 judicial officers. It led to some new names being included and their category and inter se merit position being revised. That in turn had an immediate impact on the working of the list of candidates selected against reservation. 78. Consequently, lesser number of total candidates came to be selected. Because of the change of the merit order, not only a lesser number of candidates (37 in all) were now included in the Select List based on inter se merit but also the category under which some of those selections were made, also came to be altered. Thus, some of the candidates who were earlier included in the Reserved category in the provisional Select List, now found themselves included against Unreserved posts. Only one candidate was selected under OBC category. Remaining reserved posts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BC 34 7116 VIJAY KUMAR OBC 35 6808 SUIRESH KUMAR GUPTA OBC 36 7450 VIVEK KUMAR OBC O.B.C. CATEGORY 1. 6141 SHAKIR HASAN OBC Note: Names of 05 OBC category candidates have been included in the list of unreserved category candidates on the basis of their marks in the Written Examination and Interview and they are being treated as unreserved category candidates. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I) Registrar General " 80. Clearly, the doubts being voiced by the petitioners as to manipulation in the result are completely unfounded. The record (as has also been seen by the petitioners during the hearing, both with respect to the result as also with respect to the resolution dated 23.3.2017), clearly reflects otherwise. 81. As to the claim made by petitioner No. 1 on the strength of parity with respondent Nos. 4 and 5, it has to be rejected for the simple reason that that parity was not granted by the Committee on exercise of its own discretion rather, the Committee had only given effect to the order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Not one candidate is shown to have been granted age r....