R.C.SOOD versus HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 21-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

R.C.SOOD 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN 
NOVEMBER21, 1994 
[J.S. VERMA AND K.S PARlPOORNAN, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW 
A 
B 
Rajashtan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 
1958-Suspension Order-A member of Higher Judicial Service posted as 
Registrar of High Court-Charge of issuing incorrect notification for C 
recruitment with ulterior purpose-No material to justify charge-Order of 
suspension quashed-Constitution of India 1950 Articles 14 and 16. 
The petitioner, a member of higher judicial service in the State of 
Rajasthan and a senior District and Session Judge, was posted as D 
Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court. 
Pursuant to a resolution passed by the High Court, a draft 
advertisement was finalized for recruitment to the RHJS Cadre. The 
age limit for the candidates was shown as the minimum of 35 years and 
maximum of 45 years as on 1st Jan., 1995. However, the date with E 
reference to which the eligibility of the candidates as to age had to be 
examined was required to be mentioned as 1st Jan., 1994 instead of 1st 
Jan., 1995 shown in the advertisement. Even after receipt of the 
applications, this error remained undetected. Ultimately this mistake of 
mentioning 1st Jan., 1995 instead of 1st Jan., 1994 as the date for F 
reckoning the eligibility as to age was discovered by a Committee of 
Judges. In the report it was stated that interpolations have been ~ade 
changing 1994 as 1995 which must have been done with the definite 
purpose to accommodate some candidate. On examining the record the 
Committee held the petitioner, the then Registrar responsible for the 
forgery committed in the record. The .petitioner was placed under G 
suspension with immediate effect by the High Court in exercise of the 
powers conferred by Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958. This writ petition has 
been filed by the petitioner for quashing the suspension order and the 
entire disciplinary proceedings on which it is based. 
H 
605 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R 
A 
The petitioner in his rejoinder has expressly denied making any 
corrections in the draft advertisement. The High Court has taken the 
view that the said mistake in the date of i.e., 1st Jan., 1995 instead of 1st 
Jan., 1994 in the advertisement was the result of an interpolation or 
change in the date, made by the petitioner and that it amounted to 
gross misconduct in view of the consequence flowing there from which 
B 
enabled some undue benefit to some candidates. 
c 
D 
E 
F -
G 
Allowing the writ petition, this Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no material in the entire record, apart from 
the fact that the petitioner happened to be posted as Registrar af the 
High Court at the time when the draft advertisement was finalized and 
sent for publication in the Gazette, to suggest that the change in the 
year from 1994 in the original draft to 1995 had been made by the 
petitioner and none else. It is obvious that the opportunity for making 
the change was available to many others in the registry. This obvious 
mistake was overlooked by the High Court which proceeded on the 
erroneous assumption that this change must have been made only by 
the petitioner, and that too for ulterior purpose, without any material 
to justify that assumption. The High Court also ignored the fact that 
this mistake was not discovered by anyone in the registry including the 
petitioner's successor from Feb., 1994 till Sept., 1994 when it was 
noticed by the Judges Cc..mmittee, even though the last date for receipt 
of applications was in March, 1994. (611 E,G, H, 612 A) 
. 1.2 There was no material to show if there was any candidate so 
benefited by this mistake, and if so, whether the petitioner was in any 
manner connected with him. No one in the High Court had considered 
this aspect. Part of the conclusion that the action of petitioner 
amounted to 'forgery' is indeed astounding since forgery has a legal 
connotation amounting to an offense punishable under the Indian Penal 
Code. (612 C, D, G) 
1.3 On a careful examination of the entire record, this Court· has no 
doubt that the view taken· by the High Court and the consequent action 
against the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted and violative of 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is unsustainable and hence 
struck down. (612 H) 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 680of1994. 
H 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of

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