BEDANGA TALUKDAR versus SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 635 · Decided: 28-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 11 S.C.R. 635 
BEDANGA TALUKDAR 
v. 
SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & ORS. 
I.A. No. 5-8 
IN 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8343-8344 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service law - Selection - Challenge to - Issuance of C 
advertisement to hold preliminary examination for recruitment 
to various posts in Public Service - Failure of respondent No. 
1-physically handicapped candidate to submit the requisite 
disability certificate within the stipulated period as provided in 
the advertisement - RespondeoLN.0-.--1--submitted the D 
mandatory ®mrtts-lifterthe- selection process was over, 
with the publication of the select list of the successful 
candidates and rejection of his candidature - Selection of 
appellant in the reserved category but not of respondent No. 
1 despite respondent No. 1 having scored more marks than 
E 
the appellant - Writ petition by respondent No. 1 - Order of 
High Court directing the Public Service Commission to 
examine the entitlement of respondent No. 1 by taking into 
account the identity card produced by him - On appeal, held: 
All appointments to public office have to be made in 
F 
conformity with Article 14 - There must be no arbitrariness 
resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate 
- Thus, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in 
accordance with the stipulated selection procedure - When 
a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the G 
same has to be scrupulously maintained - There can be no 
relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the 
advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved 
in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement - Even if 
635 
H 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 11 S.C.R. 
A power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be 
mentioned in the advertisement - Relaxation of any condition 
in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to 
the mandate o(equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 - On 
facts, perusal of the advertisement clearly shows that there 
B 
was no power of relaxation - High Court erred in directing that 
the condition with regard to the submission of the disability 
certificate either along with the application form or before 
appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed 
in the case of respondent No. 1; and in concluding that the 
c Authorities had not treated the condition with regard to the 
submission of the certificate along with the application or 
before appearing in the preliminary examination, as 
mandatory which is contrary to the record - Thus, order 
passed by the High Court is set aside - Persons with 
0 
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full 
Participation), Act, 1995 - Constitution of India; 1950-Articles 
14 and 16. 
Kamataka Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. B.M. 
Vijaya Shankar & Ors (1992) 2 SCC 206 - referred to. 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
(1992) 2 sec 206 
Referred to. 
Para 22 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
F 
8343-8344 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.3.2010 & 20.7.2010 
of the High Court of Guwahati, Assam in WP Nos. 950 and 
3382 of 2010. 
G 
Jayant Bhushan and V. Hazarika, Manish K. Bishnoi, 
H 
Gautam Talukdar, Shakunt Saumihra, R.B. Phookan, Goodwill 
lndeevar, Rajiv Mehta, Vartika Sahay and Deepika (for 
Corporate Law Group) for the appearing parties. 
BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & 637 
ORS. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
A 
2. These appeals are directed against the impugned B 
judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010 in Writ Petition (C) 
No. 950 of 2010 and impugned judgment and order dated 2nd 
July, 2010 in Writ Petition (C) No.3382 of 2010 passed by the 
High Court of Guwahati, allowing the writ petitions filed by the 
respondent No.1 whereby Assam Public Service Commission C 
(hereinafter referred to as "respondent No. 3") was directed to 
examine the entitlement of respondent No.1 by taking into 
account the identity card produced by him. 
3. We may notice the bare essential facts necessary for 
the determination of the controversy involved in these appeals D 
4. The respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement on 10th 
August, 2006 bearing advertisement No.6/2006, announcing its 
intention to hold the preliminary examination of the Combined 
E 
Competitive Examination, 2006 for screening candidates for the 
Main Examination for recruitment to various posts 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.