LexH.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus MUKESH THAKUR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 189 H.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. MUKESH THAKUR & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 907 of 2006) MAY 25, 2010 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) Service Law: Judicial Service: . '\ " Appointment - Written exafrination - Re-evaluation of A B c answer-sheets of writ petitioner .:.. Directed by High Court - After receipt of marks on re-(3valuation, High Court directing appointment letter to be issuec/, to writ petitioner- Held: 9ourts, 0 . can not take upon themselv~~"th,e task of statutory authorities - Admittedly, the candidate c~lp not secure qualifying marks in the paper concerned - It was not permissible for High Court to itself examine the question paper and answer sheets - Further, in absence of any statutory provision, Court should not generally direct re-evaluation - Judgment of High Court E set aside - Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Syllabus and A/location of Marks) Regulations, 2005 - Regulation 6 - Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Artic/0; 226., Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 - Writ petitiOlJ - Restraint on the remedy by High Court - In a writ petition filed by a candidate who failed F to secure qualifying marks and was not called for interview, G High Court passing a general order restraining other aggrieved persons from approaching the Court, by filing writ petition on any ground - Held: Such an order'not justified, -particularly, when the Court has competence to grant 189 H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 7 S.C.R. A equitable relief to persons even if they are not before the Court, more so, when it has also power to mould the relief in a particular fact-situation - Service Law - Judicial Service. Respondent No.1, pursuant to the advertisement 8 dated 2.4.2005, appeared in the written examination for selection of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Though he secured 50% marks in aggregate, but failed to secure 45% marks in the paper of Civil Law-II and, therefore, was not called for interview. C He filed a writ petition and the High Court after examining his answer-sheets directed for re-evaluation thereof. On receipt of the marks consequent upon such re- evaluation, the High Court disposed of the writ-petition directing that appointment letter be issued to respondent no.1. It further directed that no other petition on the same D or similar grounds would be entertained. Aggrieved, the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission filed the appeals. E Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is settled legal proposition that courts cannot take upon themselves the task of the statutory authorities. In the instant case, there is no dispute so far as the process of evaluation of the answer sheets is F concerned. Respor:ident No. 1, admittedly, could not secure qualifying marks in one paper. It was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the G question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent no.1 alone. [Para 11, 14 and 19] [198-D; 197- G-H; 197-D; 199-F-G] H Government of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Hanichal Roy & Anr. H.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. MUKESH 191 THAKUR & ANR. (1998) 6 SCC 626; Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. A Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar (Mrs.) & Anr., (1994) 2 SCR 163 = AIR 1994 SC 2148; A. Uma~ani Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 112; Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dr P. Sambasiva Rao & ORS. (1996) 7 SCC 499 and G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman 8 and Raman Ltd., (1952) SCR 583 =AIR 1952 SC 192, relied on. 1.2. The issue of re~evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. In the absence of any provision under C the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the courts should not generally direct re-evaluation. The Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Syllabus and Allocation of Marks) Regulations, 2005 do not contain any provision for re-evaluation. [Paras 11, 24, 27) (201-D; 209-8; 197-C] D Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. (1985) 1 SCR 29 =AIR 1984 SC 1543; Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.