Punjab and Other Vs. Constable Subhash Chander
& Ors  INSC 21 (13 January 1993)
L.M. (Cj) Sharma, L.M. (Cj) Yogeshwar Dayal (J) Bharucha S.P. (J)
1993 AIR 2321 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 465 JT 1993 Supl. 447
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.
Respondent 1 was serving the appellant-State as a constable in the Police
Department. He applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in
response to an advertisement issued in that regard. The respondent appeared at
the written examination and viva-voce test held for selecting suitable
candidates for appointment. He was, however, not selected and he filed a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, which was
allowed by a perfunctory judgment which is quoted below in its entirety:
hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through their
pleadings, we find that the petitioner, who has got excellent career and has got
good marks in the written test as well as interview and also possesses very
good sports career, deserves to be selected on the post of Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police. In fact, the petitioner is already working as a
constable in the Police Department, Punjab and is wholly suitable for the job.
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda v. State
of Karnataka' Civil Appeal No. 4088 of 1991, we exercise our extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the
State Government to consider the petitioner as duly selected for the post of
ASI and appoint him on that post forthwith. In view of the necessary relief
having been granted to the petitioner, we need not go into the further
contentions raised by the petitioner and this will not serve as a
precedent." 3.It appears that the High Court took upon itself the decision
of the claim of the respondent to be appointed to the post and, while doing so,
was greatly impressed by his service record as a constable and the marks
obtained by him at the selection test, however it did not take into account the
merits of the selected candidates and of other candidates who, although not
selected for appointment, were more meritorious than the respondent.
learned counsel for the respondent, contended that since the High Court has
relied upon the decision in Ashok alias Somanna Gowda v. State of Kamataka1 it cannot be said that the High
Court had failed to support its judgment by reasons. We are unable to agree.
The reported case has been mentioned as a passing observation without any
attempt to indicate the ratio which could be applied to the present case. We
have examined the judgment in Somanna Gowda case1 and are of the view that the
same is not at all applicable to the present case.
has been stated in the special leave petition that the total marks obtained by
the respondent at the test were 76.55 whereas the last candidate from the
general category to be appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector obtained 80.50
marks. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that many 1 (1992)
1 SCC 28 467 other candidates, who failed to secure adequate marks for the
purpose of selection, secured higher marks than the respondent and, since they
have not been impleaded as parties in the writ petition, the writ petition is
fit to be dismissed on that ground alone.
High Court, having come to final decision in favour of the respondent without
adverting to the merits of the other candidates, acted in error.
counsel for the respondent attempted to support the case of the respondent on
some other grounds which have not been mentioned by the High Court. We at this
stage cannot go into such arguments. We are of the view that the writ petition
must be reheard on merits by the High Court.
we set aside the impugned judgment and order, allow the appeal and remit the
case to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. There will be
no order as to the costs in this Court.