KU. RASHMI MISHRA versus MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KU. RASHMI MISHRA 
v. 
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 19. 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226--Writ petition-Non-joinder 
of necessary party-Selection of Assistant Registrars in State University-
C Questioned by Appellant by filing a writ petition-Only two of the seventeen 
selected persons impleaded as Respondents in the petition- Effect of-Held: 
D 
All the seventeen selected persons were necessary parties and they not 
having been impleaded except two, no relief could be granted to Appellant-
Service law-Madhya Pradesh State University Service Rules, 1982-Rules 
5, 8 and 12. 
Seventeen persons including Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were selected &s 
Assistant Registrars in the State University of Madhya Pradesh. The selection 
was done through the State Public Service Commission. Appellant, though 
qualified for the post was not selected. He filed writ petition challenging the 
validity/legality of the selection process but did not implead all the seventeen 
E selected candidates as parties therein. Only Respondent Nos.3 and 4, against 
whom allegations were made to the effect that they were selected due to 
favouritism/nepotism allegedly shown in their favour by the Selection 
Committee, were impleaded. High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for consideration is 
F whether all the seventeen selected persons having been not impleaded as 
parties in the writ petition, no relief could be granted to Appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. All the seventeen selected candidates were necessary parties 
G in the writ petition. The number of selected candidates was not large. There 
was no difficulty for Appellant to implead them as parties in the said 
proceeding. The result of the writ petition could have affected the appointees. 
They were, thus, necessary and/or in any event proper parties. (714-C-DI 
H 
708 
·-
• 
-
KU. RASllMI MISHRA r. MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMM. 
709 
1.2. As all the selected candidates were not impleaded as parties in the A 
writ petition, no relief can be granted to the appellant. 1720-EI 
Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, 11984( 4 SCC 
251; A/I India SC & ST Employees Assn. & Anr. etc. v. A. Arthur Jeen & Ors. 
etc., 12001 I 6 SCC 380 and lndu Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & 
Ors., (2006) 5 SCALE 107, relied on. 
B 
2. The post of Assistant Registrar in the Universities requires no 
professional experience. What was required to be seen was academic 
qualification, experience and other abilities of the candidate. Whereas the 
ability of communication and other skills may have to be judged through 
interview, experience of the candidate as also the marks obtained by him in C 
the written examination could not have been ignored. It is not that the Public 
Service Commission was not called upon hold a written examination. The 
Madhya Pradesh State University Service Rules, 1982 enabled the 
Commission to do so. Such a written examination in fact was held. However, 
the same was held only for the purpose of short-listing the candidates and not 
for any other purpose. It was not a fair exercise of power. The marks obtained D 
by the candidates in the said written examination should have been taken into 
consideration. Evidently, the Commission did not do so. For the reasons stated 
hereinbefore, the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to consider the 
desirability of amending the Rules suitably so that such charges of favoritism 
or nepotism by the members of the constitutional authority in future is not E 
called in question. Although for one reason or the other, the High Court had 
not addressed itself on this question, but, the very fact that such allegations 
had been made is a sufficient ground for the State or the Commission to take 
appropriate steps for amending the Rules for the said purpose. 
[719-H; 720-A-E( 
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, [1981( 1SCC722; Ashok Kumar 
Yadav & Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors. etc., [1985) 4 SCC 417; State of 
U.P. etc. v. Rajiquddin & Ors. etc., [1987) Supp. SCC 401; Jaswinder Singh 
F 
& Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., 12003) 2 SCC 132; Vijay Syal & 
Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [2003( 9 SCC 401; K.H. Siraj v. High Court of 
Kera/a & Ors., 12006) 6 SCC 395; Sardara Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab G 
& Ors., [1991) 4 SCC 555 and Munindra Kumar & Ors. v.

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