LexDURGACHARAN MISRA versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
DURGACHAR{\N MISRA
v.
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
AUGUST 27, 1987
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.)
A
B
Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964: Rules 16-19: Judicial
Service-Probationary Munsifs-Recruitment of-Viva-voce test-
Minimum qualifying marks not prescribed-State Public Service
Commission-Whether competent to prescribe additional requirements
C
for selection-High Court Judge present as an expert at the viva-voce--
Advice of-Whether could run counter to the Statutory Rules.
The petitioner had secured 470 marks out of 950 in the written
examination conducted by the Orissa Public Service Commission for
-"(
the post of Probationary Munsifs for the year 1982-83. In the viva-voce
D
test he was given 30 marks out of 200. But he did not find a place in the
merit list though candidates with less number of aggregate marks had
been selected.
In the writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution he chal-
, ti lenged the validity of selection on the ground, among others, that it was
E
"""-
arbitrary and contrary to rules. For the respondents it was submitted
that the Commission had taken a decision on the advice of the High
Court Judge who was present at the viva-voce test as provided under
'(
r. 17 of the Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964, that a candidate to be
suitable for the post of Munsif should secure at least 30 per cent marks
~·
at the viva-voce test, and that the petitioner did not secure the minimum
F
qualifying marks so prescribed.
Allowing the writ petition,
HELD: 1. The decision of the Orissa Public Service Commission
to prescribe the minimum marks to be secured at the viva-voce test for
G
the post of Probationary Munsifs in the State Judicial Service was illegal
and without authority. [ 1106B]
2.1 The Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 1964 framed under the
proviso to Article 309 read with Article 234 of the Constitution, have
been made by the Governor of the State after consultation with the State
H
1097
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1987] 3 S.C.R. >
A
Public Service Commission and the Slate High Court. The Commission,
which has been constituted under the Rules must, therefore, faithfully
follow the Rules. It must select candidates in accordance with the Rules.
It cannot prescribe additional requirements for selection either as to
eligibility or as to suitability. (1105G-H; 1106A]
~
13
2.2 Rule 16 of the Rules reqnires a candidate to secure a mini·
mum of 30 per cent marks in the written examination to qualify. The
·~
candidates who have secured more than that minimum would alone be
'
called for viva-voce test. The Rules do not prescribe any such minimum
/I
marks to be secured at the viva-voce test. Rule 18 mandates the Com·
mission to add the marks obtained at the written examination and the viva·
--
c voce test together, no matter what the marks at the viva-voce test. On the
basis of the aggregate marks in both the tests, the names of candidates
y
will have to be arranged in order of merit. The list so prepared Is then
to be forwarded to the Government under Rule 19. (llOlD-E; Fl
The Commission, therefore, had no power to exclude the name of
D any candidate from the select list merely because he had secured less
.,.
marks at the viva-voce test. (llOlG]
P.K. Ramchandra Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984]
2 SCR 200; and Umesh Chandra Shukla etc. etc. v. Union of India,
( 1985] Supp, 2 SCR 367, referred to.
~.
E
3. Even if the minimum qualifying marks were fixed for the viva·
....
voce test by the Commission on the advice of the High Court Judge,
present at the viva-voce test in accordance with r. 17 of the Rules, that
cannot validate the action of the Commission, for he had no power to
)'
add anything to the Rules of recruitment. Role 17 itself proceeds to
F
state that such a Judge shall not be responsible for selection of candi·
dates. He may advise the Commission as to the special qualities re·
quired for judicial appointments. His advice may be in regard to the
range ofsubjects in respect of which the viva-voce shall be conducted. It
may also cover the type and standard of questions to be put to candi·
dates or the acceptance of the answers given thereof. But his advice -I
G
cannot run counter to the statutory Rules. (1104F·H; 1105F]
Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and
Ors. etc. etc., (1985] Supp. 1SCR657, referred to.
4. The Orissa Public Service Commission is direcExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.