UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus RAJESH P.U. PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 30-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAJESH P.U. PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANR. 
JULY 30, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARJJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Selection of candidate for the post of Constable--Complaint-Enquiry C 
by committee-Order of cancellation of recruitment process in view of 
discrepancies in valuation of answer book-Writ petition-High Court 
directing authority to correct mistake in selection-On appeal held, 
cancellation of selection not justified on account of discrepancies found 
since there was no infirmity in selection of other successful candidates than 
certain candidates identified by the committee-Thus cancellation of entire D 
selection not warranted. 
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted selection process for 
the appointment to the post of Constables and prepared a list of selected 
candidates which included names of the respondent and other candidates. Some 
of the unsuccessful candidates challenged the selections. Director, CBI E 
constituted a Committee to enquire into the complaints relating to selection. 
On the basis of the report it ordered cancellation of the recruitment process. 
Respondent filed an application challenging the cancellation which was 
dismissed. Respondent then filed writ petition. High Court allowed writ petition 
and directed CBI to correct the mistakes in the selections by rearranging F 
the selection list and completing the selection as per the re-evaluation found 
to be necessary by the Committee. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-Union of India contended that the cancellation of the selection 
was justified on account of the discrepancies found out by the Committee in 
valuation of the answer papers, certain lapses in the matter of dictating the G 
questions in English and Hindi, non-uniformity of answer sheets and absence 
of official seals, therefore, there was no justification for the High Court to 
interfere in the matter; Respondents contended that there were no lapses in 
announcing questions in English and Hindi and for every to candidates there 
was an invigilator to supervise the test. 
883 
H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Dism.ssing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the light of the materials brought on record, including the 
Report submitted by the Special Committee constituted for the purpose of 
inquiring into the irregularities, if any, in the selection of candidates, there 
B appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance against the decision 
rendered by the High Court. Therefore, the Competent Authority completely 
misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of 
cancelling the entire selections, which is wholly unwarranted and unnecessary 
even on the factual situation and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of 
what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational. 
C Hence, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which adopted 
a practical, pragmatic, rational and realistic solution to the problem. 
(888-B, C; 889-B-D( 
2.1. There seems to be no serious grievance of any malpractices as such 
in the process of the written examination - either by the candidates or by those 
D who actually conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions 
in loud speaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any 
grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no justification 
to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating them in different 
languages left any room or scope for the candidates to discuss among them 
E the possible answers. The posting of invigilators for every ten candidates 
would belie any such assumptions. Even that apart, the Special Committee 
constituted does not appear to have condemned that part of the selection process 
relating to conduct of written examination itself, except noticing only certain 
infirmities only in the matter of valuation of answer sheets with reference to 
correct answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. 
F 
(888-C-E( 
2.2. It appears the Special Committee has extensively scrutinized and 
reviewed situation by re-evaluating the answer sheets of all the successful as 
well as unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that except few candidates 
found to have been declared successful though they were not really entitled 
G to be so declared successful and selected for appointment. There was no 
infirmity whatsoe

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