High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2003/2017dismissed

Dilbag Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2023-02-16Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain8 pages

!"#"$%&'&(

- ./- * 0 1

$ ! % &'

1%* $()( * ) )

+ )

!, ! !

( !

)

! ( ! !

- .&/

% 0 1

( !

)

(

!%!

1 % &230

5 (

! ! 67

% &224&23/

!% 0&230 3& (&230

8 !9 (

% !%!

1 % &230 % & ! !

. !

!%!

! - .&

) )! !

) ! ) ! ) 8

! )

! 6

! - .&'

! (

- .&'

! ( ! ( ) &/ &231

( :6

;

<- 6

) ! !

) (

! 6

) (3, )

! ! )

= -,/2 ) !

)) (

- 6 1- 3#"4*0 " " "% 5&'',6(02

! 6

) (! !

, ! (

! /2 ),)

! ! (!

( 3& , *

) (

)

! ) ! (3, 30 , ! (

! ( 4 , ! (

6! ( /

! !

! )

) .

7 8"$ )"

-"9 # 2'

7 -"9 **6 #&'

:;"

-"9 # '

< #+'

"4= -"9

#< < #>'

-"9 #&'

(

&2 &0 3'

"< ?>*(> $ &2 0& .

0& ) / * "< ??*2&

, && 3& 1& .

1& / ?

*& <!8 0 0** *2

&*,2 @ (?*(2 ( (+*(2

&2 /0 3& && .

4& ?/ (,*>+

&3 3& 1> .

3> (>*

&3 /0 3& ?> .

/4 3'

0< & "< ?,*+(

34 1#7" 0** &(*+2

(*&& @ (*>+ (+*>+ ?

! -, )

) % 0 ! !, * ) ,) )

) ) !! (

8 )6) )

! ! ! ! )) ( $ 6 ! # 4*0"$ "%";"&'

'5&60/ & )

) . "xx xx xx

19. An administrative or quasi judicial body such as a Selection Committee has normally to be left to devise its own procedure, subject to the same being fair and reasonable. Selection has to be made by assessment of relative merits. It is not necessary to give any reasons for the assessment. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. M.L. Capoor and others, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 87, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992(3) SCT 488 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1806, para 7 and Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, 1992(1) SCT 546 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court

1. Though, the selection authority has to be given free play in joints, the power of awarding marks in interview is coupled with the duty to select the best and cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

20. Judicial review is basic structure of the Constitution. Its depth depends on nature of decision. No decision may be exempt from judicial review except decisions such as employment of troops and entering into international treaties (State of N.C.T. of Delhi v. Sanjeev, 2005(2) Apex Criminal 338 : AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2080).

Scope of judicial review extends to remedying injustice wherever found. Power exercised by any public authority is for the purpose for which the same is conferred. No authority can function arbitrarily or mala fidely. (Dwarka Nath v. I.T.O. Special Circle, D. Ward Kanpur and anr., AIR 1966 Supreme Court 81, Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2226, Comptroller and AuditorGeneral of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986)2 SC 679, Para 18-20, Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. v. State of U.P. & ors., 1991(1) SCT 575 : AIR 1991 Supreme Court 537, Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P., 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 616 : 2006(3) Apex Criminal 447 : (2006)8 SCC 161, Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 980, Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI,

AIR 1986 Supreme Court 872 and S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 72). With expanding scope of judicial review, there are instances of interference even in cases earlier considered to be purely executive functions. In Center for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 707 : 2005(4) SCT 603 : 2005

(3) Apex Criminal 711 : AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4413, appointment of Chief Secretary was set aside with the observation that on sensitive posts, appointments must be transparent and of persons above any suspicion. In Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 439 : 2006(3) Apex Criminal 359 : 2006(8) SCC 1, directions in the matter of police reforms were issued. Appointments to Public Service Commissions had to be of persons of integrity. However, in the present case, we are not directly concerned with appointment of members of the Commission but only with the issue of selection being on merits. This is possible only when persons of high integrity are appointed as Chairman or members of Public Service Commission. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, commenting upon unsatisfactory state of affairs of appointments to the commissions have already been referred to in this regard.

21. In M.V. Thimmaiah and others v. Union Public Service Commission and others, 2008(1) SCT 569 : 2008(1) RAJ 493 : (2008)2 SCC 119, para 21, principles for judicial review of recommendations of Selection Committee were reviewed and it was observed that scope for interference was limited to situations where selection is actuated by mala fides and violation of statutory provisions. After referring to judgments in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 : AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3044, P.M. Bayas v. Union of India, 1993(3) SCT 111 : (1993) 3 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985)4 SCC 417, Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981)1 SCC 722, UPSC v. S.

Thiagarajan, 2007(2) SCT 187 : 2007(1) RAJ 926 : (2007)9 SCC 548, G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow, (1976)3 SCC 585, Kunda S. Kadam v. Dr. K.K. Soman, (1980)2 SCC 355, Ashok Nagar Welfare Assn. v. R.K. Sharma, 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 512 : (2002)1 SCC 749, Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1973) 2 SCC 836, Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, (1981)4 SCC 159, R.S. Dass v. Union of India, 1986 Supp SCC 617, State of U.P. v. Rafiquddin, 1987 Supp SCC 401, UPSC v. Hiranyalal Dev, (1988)2 SCC 242, Mehmood Alam Tariq v. State of Rajasthan, (1988)3 SCC 241, Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, (1990)1 SCC 305, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992(3) SCT 488 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 481, Indian Airlines Corpn. v. Capt. K.C. Shukla, 1992(3) SCT 740 : (1993)1 SCC 17, C.P. Kalra v.

Air India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 454, Anil Katiyar v. Union of India, 1997(2) SCT 157 : (1997)1 SCC 280, All India State Bank Officers' Federation v. Union of India, 1997(1) SCT 91 : (1997) 9 SCC 151, Union of India v. N. Chandrasekharan, 1998(1) SCT 631 : (1998)3 SCC 694., Inder Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, 2004(2) SCT 680 : (2004)6 SCC 786, K.H. Siraj v.

(3) SCT 146 : (2006)6 SCC 395, it was concluded :- "22. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by this Court in several decisions, now we shall examine the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants which had been addressed. But we may at the very outset observe that the Court while considering the proceedings of the Selection Committee does not sit as a court of appeal. Courts have limited scope to interfere, either selection is actuated with mala fide or statutory provisions have not been followed....."

22. From the survey of above case law, it is clear that while Selection Committee can devise its own procedure, the same has to be fair and reasonable having

nexus to the object of selecting the best. Criteria adopted by Selection Committee is open to judicial review on well known grounds of illegality, irrationality and impropriety."

* )

. ) 6 (!! !

(

"# ! ! !

! ! ( ( ! ( (

(

) ) , )! )

( !

(! ! ))

- ! ( ! )

!! !

! - ! )! ) 3&

)

! (

!( ,

! ! !

!"#"$ %&'&( 5 16 ;"

, :

@ :%