LexVIKAS PRATAP SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2013] 10 S.C.R. 1114 VIKAS PRATAP SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5318-19 of 2013 etc.) JULY 9, 2013 [H.L. DATTU AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Service Law: c Recruitment/Selection - Competitive examination - Appointment of successful candidates as per the merit list - Complaints regarding defects/mistakes in questions of main examination - Expert Committee found the defects - Selective re-evaluation of the answer-scripts of all the candidates - D Revised merit list drawn - In the revised list name of 26 candidates who were appointed on the basis of first merit list, did not figure - Writ petition by the 26 candidates challenging validity of the revised merit list - Dismissed by High Court - Held: The decision of re-evaluation was valid and has not caused any prejudice either to the 26 candidates or to the E candidates selected in the revised merit list - But since the candidates have successfully completed their training and rendered 3 years service by virtue of the interim order passed by the High Court and also because the 26 candidates were not responsible for the irregularity, their appointment cannot F be cancelled - The 26 candidates would be put at the bottom of the revised merit list - They also will not be entitled to back wages, seniority or any other benefit on the basis of their appointment as per the first merit list. G Chairman, J and K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 59: 2000 (1) SCR 402; Sahiti and Ors. vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N. T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 599: 2008 (14) SCR 1032; Union of India and Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran 1995 · H 1114 VIKAS PRATAP SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF 1115 CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. Suppl. (4) SCC 100: 1995 (4) Suppl. SCR 526; Vinodan T. A and Ors. vs. University of Caltcut and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 726: 2002 (3) SCR 530; State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 906; Girjesh Shrivastava and Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 707: 2010 (12) SCR 839; Union of India (UOI) and Anr. B vs. Narendra Singh (2008) 2 SCC 750: 2007 (13) SCR 504; Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers' Association vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591; Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Ors. vs. Akhil Kumar and Ors. (2001) 2 SCR 18; M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) and Anr. vs. S.D. Halegkar and c Ors. (1993) II LLJ 1159 SC Tridip Kumar Dingal and Ors. vs. State of,West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 768: 2008 (15) SCR 194 - relied on. District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social D Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (~ 990) 3 SCC 655: 1990 (2) SCR 559; P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and Ors. (1994) 1 sec 1: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422 - referred to. Maxim - 'frans et jus nunquam cohyabitant' - E Applicability of. Case Law Reference: 2000 (1) SCR 402 relied on Para 16 2008 (14) SCR 1032 relied on Para 16 F 1990 (2) SCR 559 referred to Para 20 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422 referred to Para 20 1995 (4) .Suppl. SCR 526 relied on Para 20 2002 (3) SCR 530 relied on Para 20 G 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 906 relied on Para 20 2010 (12) SCR 839 relied on Para 21 2007 (13) SCR 504 relied on Para 22 H 1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A 1994 Supp (2) sec 591 relied on Para 23 (2001) 2 SCR 18 relied on Para 24 (1993) II LLJ 1159 SC relied on Para 24 2008 (15) SCR 194 relied on Para 24 B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5318-5319 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2011 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in Writ Petition No. 4229 c of 2009. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 5318-5319 of 2013 (S.L.P. (C) Nos. 26341- 26342 of 2011. D C.A. No. 5320 of 2013 & Contempt Petition (C) No. 433 of 2011 in C.A. No. 5320 of 2013. S.K. Dubey, Mukul Rohatgi, Sameer Shrivastava, Kunal Verma, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, E Apoorv Kurup (for C.D. Singh), Sanjeeb Panigrahi, L. Nidhiram Sharma (for Sidhartha Chowdhury) for the appearing parties. The Order of the Court was delivered by H.L. DATIU, J. 1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave F Petitions. 2. These batch of appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition Nos. 3087, 3204 and 4229 of 2009, dated 06.09.2011, whereby and whereunder the High G Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.