LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus JOSEPH P. CHERIAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A v. JOSEPH P. CHERIAN SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 [ ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B Service Law: Promotion-Post of Sub-Inspector, in Border Security Force- Departmental examination against 24 vacancies in 1995-Cancellation of C results, on ground of adoption of unfair means-Fresh departmental examination against 86 vacancies in 1998-Plea of single employee for grant of promotion to the post on basis of marks secured by him in previous examination, in respect of vacancies arisen in I 998 'even though subsequent examination not taken by him-Grant of, by High Court-Sustainability of- D Held: When the results of previous examination have been cancelled on the ground of malpractice, individual's case on basis of marks secured by him at the said examination cannot be considered, against vacancies arising in subsequent year, that too when he did not appear in the fresh examination-- Hence, grant of such relief unsustainable and order of High Court set aside. E In 1995 departmental examination was held with regard to 24 vacancies existing in the grade of Sub Inspector in Border Security Force. Respondent- employee appeared at centre S. On account of adoption of unfair means at various centres, result of all centres was cancelled. Thereafter, fresh departmental examination was held against 86 vacancies arising in 1998. Respondent did not appear in the examination and filed writ petition for F promotion to the post of Sub Inspector on basis of marks secured by him in the departmental examination held in 1995, in respect ofvacancies arisen in 1998. High Court granted the relief. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: There was no challenge to the cancellation of the result in the writ petition. In fact, High Court itself noted that on the basis of a single individual's challenge the question whether the examination in its entirety was to be nullified was not examined, yet it granted relief to the respondent- G 617 H 618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A employee with clearly unsustainable directions. High Court's view that if unfair means were adopted at one centre, result of other centres should not have been cancelled, is wholly indefensible. The Staff Court of Inquiry recorded a finding that there were serious irregularities in the conduct of examination at centre J and unfair means on a large scale were adopted at other centres and as such the decision to cancel the examination was taken. When the results B of 1995 examination have been cancelled, the question of the respondent- employee's case being considered on the basis of marks secured by him at the said examination does not arise. While considering the case of mass malpractice there is no scope of examining the individual's case. Further, the direction that the respondent will be considered in respect of 86 vacancies C which arose subsequent to the examination taken by him is equally indefensible since the respondent did not appear at the departmental examination held in 1998. Hence, the relief granted to the respondent-employee is unsustainable. (620-D-E, F; 621-A, CJ The Bihar Education Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors., AIR D (1970) SC 1269; Krishan Yadav and Anr v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR (1994) SC 2166; P.A. Ratnakar Rao and Ors. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR (1996) SC 2523; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ajay Kumar Dass and Ors., [2002) 4 SCC 503 and Union of India and Ors. v. 0. Chakradhar, AIR (2002) SC 1119, relied on. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 23of1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.98 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14625of1997. Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri and P. Parmeshwaran for the F Appellants. Goodwill lndeevar, (NP) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs and other functionaries of the Union have questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') was entitled to be promoted to the post of Sub Inspector on the basis of marks secured by him in the departmental examination held on H 24th and 25th July, 1995, in respect of the vacancies arising in 1998. U.0.1. v. JOSEPHP.CHERIAN(PASAYAT,J.) 619 A bri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.