LexRADHEY SHYAM SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ' RADHEY SHYAM SINGH AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DECEMBER 9, 1996 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] Setvice Law : Government of India (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Resolution dated 4.11.1975 : Recrnitment process-Merit list:-Zone-wise preparation of-By Subor- dinate Seivices Commissio,......On basis of examination held at various zones:-Held: violative of Arts. 14 and lfr-flowever, decision made effective only prospectively-Constitution of India 1950, Arts. 14 and 16, Recrnitment process-Merit list-Zonewise merit list in vogue for a long tim&-Held: violated Arts. 14 and 16-Such a selection process could not be upheld merely because it was in vogue for a long time. A B c D The respondent passed a resolution whereby a "Subordinate Services E Commission"was constitnted for the purposes of recruitment to Non°tech· nical Class III posts in the departments of the Government of India and in the subordinate offices. The said resolution ensured holding of examina· tion but as far as possible actual recruitment was to be made on zonal basis so as to be absorbed in the vacancies arising within the respective regions. Ai:cording to the advertisement published by the Commission a F separate list was to be drawn up in respect of each zone in the order of merit after the examination. The appellants filed an application before the Central Administra- tive Tribunal challenging the the zone-wise selection on the basis of G separate merit list drawn from each zone instead of drawing an All India Merit List on the ground that such a selection 'iolated Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court 669 H 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R ... A HELD: 1.1. There exists no nexus between th' zone-wise selection and the object to be achieved, that is, the selection of the best candidate. There· fore, the process of selection as envisaged in the advertisement in question would lead to discriminatory results because adopting the said process of zone· wise selection would result in the devaluation of merit at the selection examination by selecting a candidate who has secured more marks and B consequently the rule of equal chance for equal marks would be violated. Such a process would not only be against the principles enunciated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but it would also result in heart burning and frustation amongst the young men of the country. The rule of equality of opportunity for every individual in the country is an inalienable C part of our Constitutional guarantee and that being so a candidate who secures more marks than another is definitely entitled to get preference for the job as the merit must be the test when selecting a candidate for recruit· men! for the posts which are advertised. [675-G-H; 676-A·CJ Rajendran v. State of Madras & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 786; Periakaruppan D. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1971] 2 SCR 430 and Nidamarti Mahesh- kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 534, relied on. Om Prakash v. Akhilesh Kumar, [1986] 1 SCR 855, referred to. 1.2. However, this judgment will have prospective application and E whatever selections and appointments have so far been made in accord· ance with the impugned process of selection shall not be disturbed on the basis of this judgment. But in future no such selection shall be made on the zonal basis. The process of zone-wise selection cannot be upheld merely because it had been in vogue for a long time for the simple reason that it F was never challenged by anybody and was not subjected to judicial scrutiny at all. [676-H; 677-A·B] CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4190 of 1995 Etc. G From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.95 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal in New Delhi in OA. No. No. 322 of 1995. P.P. Rao and Jitendra Mohan Sharma for the Appellants/Petitioner_s, K.N. Shukla, Shashi Kiran, Anil Katiyar, Anubha Jain for the H Respondents. RADHEYSHYAMS!NGH v. U.0.1. [FAIZANUDDIN,J.] 671 ). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. This Civil Appeal has been directed against the order passed .by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 322/1995 dismissing the appellants application at the admission stage ch
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.