Ratul Kumar Das & others v. State of Assam and others) wherein the APSC took the stand that it was
Case Details
WA 107/2013 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOEL,THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI
Legal Reasoning
(A.K.Goel, CJ) This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge declining t o interfere with the process of selection for the Assam Civil Service and other allied services initiated by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) by way o f combined competitive examination 2009, in pursuance of advertisement dated 16. 02.2009. Total number of advertised posts are 280. Result of the main examinati on was declared on 31.12.2012 and 582 candidates were called for interview to be held from 18.01.2013 to 14.02.2013. Since the petitioners were not called for interview, they moved this Court by submitting that adopting the ratio of 1: 2 f or short listing the candidates for interview was arbitrary as against ratio of 1 : 4 which was being earlier followed by the APSC. Reliance was placed on affid avit of APSC in WP(C) No.2755/2009 (Ratul Kumar Das & others vs. State of Assam and others) wherein the APSC took the stand that it was following the ratio of 1 : 4. The writ petition was opposed by the APSC. It was submitted that ratio of 1 : 4 followed earlier was not in accordance with the APSC Combined Competitive Examin ation Rules, 1989 and therefore the same was not repeated. Under the Rules no s pecific ratio was laid down. However, ratio of 1 : 2 was specified in earlier ad vertisement and the same was fixed having regard to such ratio being followed in most of the Public Service Commissions, including the UPSC. By way of rejoinder, the petitioners also sought to raise a ground that as again st the requirement of Chairman and six Members, only four Members had been appoi nted out of whom one was acting as the Chairman. At least half of the Members we re required to have qualification of experience in Govt. service for more than 1 0 years but none of the Members had such experience as per APSC Regulations, 195 1. APSC (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1986 required quorum of 2/3rd of total strength and since only four members had been appointed the required s trength of 2/3rd out of 7 i.e. 5 was not available. Learned Single Judge after referring to the minutes of the meeting of the APSC h eld on 07.03.2013 observed that there was no infirmity in adopting the ratio of 1 : 2 for short listing the candidates. As regards the plea of defect in quorum and appointment of members, it was held that no such plea was not raised in the writ petition and was raised, for the first time, in the rejoinder. The petition er participated in the selection process fully knowing the composition of the Co mmission and thus they were estopped from pleading the defect in composition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that in adopting the ratio of 1 : 2 for short listing candida tes for interview neither any law has been violated nor there is any arbitrarine ss as such procedure is universally followed by the UPSC and other Commissions a s per the stand taken by the APSC. Moreover, such procedure is in conformity wit h the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (1985) 4 SCC 417. Thus, the view taken by learned S ingle Judge cannot be held to be erroneous. As regards the defect noted in the composition of APSC, even though there is no error in the view taken by learned Single Judge that in absence of any pleading in the writ petition and when the petitioners had participated in the selection process, such point was not required to be gone into, such defect by way of coll ateral attack could not be the basis for invalidating the selection process. Reference may be made to observations in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) : (cid:28)10. stified in going into the question whether the Chairman and members of the Harya na Public Service Commission were appointed on account of caste considerations a nd political patronage or were lacking in integrity, caliber or qualification, w hen the validity of their appointments was not challenged in the writ petitions nor was any relief claimed for setting aside their appointments. The validity of their appointments could not be questioned collaterally while considering the c hallenge to the selections made by them. This view receives support from the obs ervations of Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking on behalf of the Court in G. Rangaraju Lastly, we do not think that the Division Bench of the High Court was ju v. State of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 132. There, the learned Judge pointed out : The defective appointment of a de facto Judge may be questioned directly in a pr oceeding to which he be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a litigation between two private litigants, a litigation which is of no concern o r consequence to the Judge except as a Judge. Two litigants litigating their pri vate titles cannot be permitted to bring in issue and litigate upon the title of a Judge to his office. Otherwise as soon as a Judge pronounces a judgment a lit igation may be commenced for a declaration that the judgment is void because the Judge is no Judge. A Judge’s title to his office cannot be brought into jeopard y in that fashion. Hence the rule against collateral attach on validity of judic ial appointments. [para 17] We wholly endorse these observations and conclude that the principle underlying these observations must be held to be equally applicable in the present case and the title of the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service Commission cannot be allowed to be placed in jeopardy in a proceeding for challenging the s elections made by them. This ground of attack against the validity of the select ions must therefore be rejected. (cid:29)
Decision
In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.