LexMRS. ASHA KAUL AND ANR. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
R
c
))
MRS. ASHA KAUL AND ANR. ETC.
STATE OF ,JAl\11\IU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.
APRIL 15. 1993
(U.r .. rnEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATCHALA, .J.J.]
.lammu & Kash111ir Ciril Sen·ices (Judicial) Recruitme111 Rule.
1967: Rules 39. 41 read \\'ith Articles 3 I 7-320.
Cr111s1iturio11 ofl11dia. I 950-Appoi111111e11t of Mu11s(f1·-Se/ect list
r!f'twe11ry names hy Puhlic Sell'ice Com111issio11--Go\'Cm111e111 ·s pmrer
to disapproi·e or ca11cel-Scape of-Effect <!/' Select list after one
W:'(ff-l11clusio11 i11 select li.1·1-wf1etf1er c01~fers a right to appoi11t111e11t.
Co11stitutio11 of India. 1950 : Article I 3G-Appeal-Appoi11tme11t
of M 1.111s(f1·-G01·emme111 's act i a11 ofnat appr01·i11g re111ui11i11g names in
select lisr-/11te1/ere11ce /Jy Supreme Court 1111der rite circumsrances
1rhether cal/edf or.
On 28.5.1984, the High Court intimated the government of ten
E \'acandes in the categoQ' of l\lunsifs and requested it to initiate
appropriate steps for selection of candidates.
F
\Vritten test was held in the ~·ear 1985 and ~·frav1Jce was also held
h~· the Puhlic Sen·ice Commission.
On 10.12.1985 the High Court requested the Go,·ernment to
select twenty candidates in the place of ten. On 27.12.1885 the
Go,·ernmt:nt requestt!d the Public Sen·ice Commission to select
twent~· candidates: On t 1.3. t 986 the Public senice commission sent
three select lists, i.me containing twent~· candidates the other coritain-
G ing three Scht!duled ca·stes candidates and a waiting list of ten
candidates.
The Gcwernment receh·ed se\'eral complaints against the pro-
cess of selection. It was to~·ing with the idea of scrapping the entire list
H and asking for a fresh selection.
94
-
MRS. ASHA KAUL'" STATE of J. & K.
95
On 23.12.1986, as the High Court said that there was urgent need A
for at least thirteen Munsifs, the go\'ernment approved the names of
thirteen persons out of the list recommended by the Public Service
commission and published the same. They were appointed on 30.12.
1986.
B
Meanwhile a writ petition had been filed in the High Court for
a direction to the Go\'ernment to appro\'e and publish the list recom-
mended by the Public Sen·ice Commission.
On 30.12.1986, the State stated before the High court that it has
alread~· appro\'ed thirteen names and approval of the remaining C
. seven persons was under its acti\'e consideration. The High Cimrt
dismissed the writ pdition as settled. The GO\·ernment did not
appro,·e an~· other names in the list in ,·iew of the complaints against_
the selection process by the Public Service Commission.
The candidates in the select list below serial No. 13 were pressing
the Gowrnment to appro\·e and publish the list and th~ High Court
was also pressing the Gm·ernment to appro,·e the list in view of the
vacancies.
I>
E
Another writ petition was filed to direct the Government to
appro,·e the remaining se\·en names from the select list.
The High Court (Singlti Judge) allowed the writ petition and
directed the Go\·ernment to appro,·e and publish the list of the
remaining candidates submitted h~· the Public Service Commission to F
it for appointment as l\lunsifs immediate!~· in accordance with the
Jammu and Kashmir Ch·il Sen·ices (Judicial) Recruitment Rules,
1967 and to consider the appointment oft he candidates (including the
writ petitioners) as Munsifs in the rncancies existing or likely to arise,
in accordance with the recommendations to be made h~· the High
Court.
G
On appeal, the di\'ision Bench of the High Co.urt reversed the
decision of the Single .Judge.
·
.. ,
·
The present appeals b~· special lea\'e were flied against the H
, ._;. -
'
, ~-
,
, __
. -. ..\"'
96
... .
. '
\
:
' ...
· Sl'PRE\IE COl'RT REl'ORTS
[199313 S.C.R.
\'
.,"'-A
deci;-<~'" of the I)i,·ision -Ilench. ·contending- 'thitf-(iiiee··--the Puhlic
\'(
.
. '
---
.
Se~\·ice Com_mission prepared and reco_mmended a select li,st, the
~: c;o\·ernme~t had -ni:> Po\Ver -tl~. ~it ir;\jlld~ent O\"er it; that the
'
·.
. .. '
.'..
.. .
. '
'
... ~
.
. ' _,-. .. .
.
.
<iol'ernnlent \Vas hound toappro,·e the li'.'t as r~commended; that the
f'uncti<;n uf the G<n'<rn.;,tnt und<r 1{ule 39 uf th;, 1967 Rules was
merely ~i~nisteri~l 'and·f;Jrffial; that the Gove~n!llent's action was
11 arbitrary and ~~pricious ~nd \'itiated by inadmissible and extraneouS
conside.ratiOn.i
-1.he St~te· c;~~:~·~;;-~·~nt suh.initted that the furlction of the. Go\· ..
~rnmExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.