SANJA Y SINGH & ANR . versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALLAHABAD AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 09-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SANJA Y SINGH & ANR . 
A 
., 
v. 
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALLAHABAD AND ANR. 
JANUARY 9, 2007 
[Y.K. SABHARW AL, CJI, C.K. THAKKER AND 
R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
-
--t 
Service law-Appointment-To the post of Civil Judge (Junior 
,. 
Division)-Competitive Examination for- Conducted by Public Service 
Commission-Use of 'Scaling System' for marking by the Commission- c 
Challenged-Earlier decision of Supreme Court upholding 'Scaling 
System '-Reconsideration of the decision also sought-Held : Scaling 
system is arbitrary and irrational-It is also violative of Rule 20(1) and 
(3) and Note (I) of Appendix-II of Judicial Service Rules-However, the 
decision will not affect selections and appointments already made as the 
D 
same was bona fide-The parties who have approached the courts whose 
aggregate of raw marks are more than the aggregate marks of the last 
y 
selected candidate in the respective category to be considered for 
~ 
appointment-UP Judicial Service Rules, 2001-rr. 20(1) and (3) and 
Note (1) of Appendix JI-UP State Public Service Commission (Regulation 
of Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1976-r. 51-U.P. Public 
E 
Service Commission (Regulation of Procedure and Conduct of Business) 
Act, 1974 -Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 234 and 309. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Writ Petition-With reference 
to an issue subject matter of earlier decision-Maintainability of-Held : 
F 
.. 
Maintainable-Ratio decidendi of earlier decision is open for examination 
..,, 
in subsequent decision-Where violations of fundamental rights is alleged, 
it cannot be held as not maintainable. 
Precedent-What constitutes-Held: It is ratio decidendi and not final 
G 
order of a judgment which forms precedent. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Held : Courts will not add words to a 
statute or read into the statute words not in it-In case of finding of 
---;-
omission of words used, it cannot make up the deficiency, if the wordings 
are clear and unambiguous. 
H 
235 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 1 S.C.R 
A 
Words and Phrases: 
'Judgment' 'order and 'decree '-Meaning of 
'Scaling'-Meaning of 
B 
Present Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants questioning use 
of 'Scaling System' of working in the examinations conducted by U.P. 
, 
Public Service Commission for appointment to the posts of Civil Judge, 
Junior Division. Petitioners are unsuccessful candidates. They also prayed 
_,_ 
" 
for reconsideration of the decision in upholding the scaling system. UP. 
c Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit, [2003] 12 SCC 701. 
The questions consider were : 
(i) Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable? 
D 
(ii) Whether 'Scaling' of marks was contrary to or prohibited by the 
relevant Rules? 
..., .. 
(iii) Whether the 'Scaling System' adopted by the Commission was 
arbitrary and irrational, and whether the decision in S.C. Dixit's case 
E 
approving the 'Scaling System' required reconsideration? 
(iv) If the statistical scaling system is found to be illegal or irrational 
or unsound, whether the selections already made, which were the subject-
matter of these petitions, should be interfered with? 
F 
Partly allowing the petitions, the Court 
.. 
y 
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be said that a writ petition under Article 32 of 
the Constitution is barred or not maintainable with reference to an issue 
which is the subject-matter of an earlier decision. [Para 10] 
.._, 
G 
1.2. It is true that a judgment of this Court cannot be challenged in 
a petition under Article 32. It can, however, be reviewed under Article 137 
or in exceptional circumstances reconsidered in exercise of inherent 
-
power, on a curative petition. It is equally true that a final judgment of a 
-+--
H High Court can be challenged only by an appeal under Articles 132 to 134 
SANJAY SINGH v. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. ALLAHABAD '237 
or by obtaining 'special leave' under Article 136 and not by a petition under 
A 
r 
Article 32. But that is not the issue here. (Para 8] (247-G, H, 248-A] 
1.3. In the present case, the petitioners do not seek to upset the 
'order' part of the judgment in S. C. Dixit 's case which decided the validity 
of UP Civil Judge (Junior Division), Examination, 2000, held under the UP 
Nyayik Sewa Niyamawali, 1951. The grievance of the petitioners is in 
B 
regard to the UP Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2003, held 
under the UP Judicial Service Rules 2001. They, however, contend that the 
ratio decidend

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