STATE OF HARYANA versus SUBASH CHANDER MARWAHA AND ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 02-05-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 15 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

c 
D 
165 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
SUBASH CHANDER MARW AHA AND ORS. 
May 2, 1973 
[J). G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAG!RISWAMI, JJ.J 
Puniab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Service Rules. Part C, rr. 8 and 10-
Rules fixing 45% as qualifying 
marks-Government 
fixing SS% for actual 
3election fur appointment-ILillegal. 
Under the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Service Rules, which were 
applicable in the appellant-State, the State Public Service Commission was to 
hold an examination and prepare a list strictly in accordance with the marks 
obtained by the candidates. 
Under s. 8 of Part C of the Rules, no candidate 
shall be considered to have qualified unless he obtains 45% marks in the aggre .. 
gate. 
Under r. 10. after the list is published in the Gazette. Government was 
bound to make the selection of the candidates strictly in the order in 
the 
list. and intimate the selection to the High Court. When vacancies are to be 
filled the High Court will send in the names in accordance with. and in the 
order in, the list, for appointment. 
In the present case, it was advertised that the Public Service Commission 
would hold an examination for recruitment 
of candidates 
for 15 vacancies. 
<40 candidates qualified by scoring 45% or more marks. The appellant selected 
the first seven who had scored more than 55% marks. The respondent, 
who 
ranked 8, 9 and 13 in the list, filed a petition for the 
issue of a 
mandamuJ 
claiming that since there were 15 vacancies, the appellant was not entitled to 
fill up only seven. 
The appellant justified their action on the ground that in 
the interest ot maintaining high standards of judicial competence, they were not 
prevented from fixing a higher standard while 111aking the actual appointment. 
'The High Court allowed the petition. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court. 
E 
HELD: (1) In order that 
n1andamus may issue to compel an authority 
F 
to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that 
authority and that the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute to 
enforce its performance. [l 70E-G] 
Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalande1 College, 
(1962] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 144, followed. 
(2) The advertisement that there were 15 vaca:Ocies did not give the res· 
pendent a right to be appointed. The fact that a candidate's name appeared in 
the list also did not entitle him to be appointed. [170A] 
(3) The effect of the rules is that, (a) the State Government shall 
not 
make appointments by travelling outside the list. and (b) the State Government 
!hall make the selection for appointment strictly according to the order in the 
list. There is no other constraint or le2al duty on the Government l;O make 
an appointment. in the judicial service. merely because there are vacanc;1es or 11 
list had been prepared. [l 70C-E] 
G 
( 4) There !s no constraint ~~ the Government against fixing a higher score 
H 
of marks for the purfJOSe of sefection with a view to maintain a high standard. 
There was nothing arbitrary in fixing 55% for the purpose of selection, because, 
the H1.e:h Court itself intimated such a view to the Punjab Government. The 
fact that that Govern1nent later fixe:d a lower score was no 2I'Ollnd for 
the 
,appellafit to change their mind. (l 71A-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil 
Appeal No. 534 of 
1973. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order da~ 
January 31. 1973 of the Puniab and Haryana High Court at. Chand1-
~arh in c.w. No. 1541 of 1972. 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 J l s.c.R. 
C. K. Daphtary, J. N. Kaushal and Bishambar Lal, for the appel-
A 
Jant. 
, 
P. Malhotra, for respondent No. t. 
Uma Dutta, for respondent No. 2. 
L. M. Singhvi arid. S. K. Dhingra, for respondent No. 3 Brahm 
Dev Sethi, for the intervener. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PALEKAR, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from an Order of 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated January 31, 1973 passed 
in Civil Writ No. 1541 of 1972. That was a Writ Petition filed by 
respondents 1 to 3 for a mandamus. 
The petition was allowed and by 
its judgment the High Court issued a mandamus to the appellant to 
select respondents 1 to 3 under Rule lO(ii) of Part C of the Punjab 
Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Services Rules so that their names are 
brought on the High Court Register for appointment as Subordinate 
Judges in the Haryana State. The aforesaid rules had been adopt-
ed by the Haryana State aft
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.