& Kashmir Public Service Commission Vs. Farhat Rasool & Ors  INSC
624 (2 November 1995)
B.L. (J) Hansaria B.L. (J) Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria. J.
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 621 1995 SCALE (6)182
appellant is Jammu and
Service Commission. It has felt aggrieved at the mandamus issued to it by the
Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to declare the result of
respondent No.1's selection and forward the same to the State, to whom
direction given is to appoint the respondent to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Elect) and to treat him as having been appointed from the date other
candidates whose names found place in the select list were appointed and give
him all consequential service benefits.
appellant has a serious grievance to the direction issued by the Division Bench
who set aside the order of the single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition of
the respondent in limine.
According to the appellant, the aforesaid direction were not merited inasmuch
the respondent had made a false declaration, when he had applied for the post
in question on 13.2.1988 stating, inter alia, that he had passed B.E.
examination in 1987 securing 5608 marks out of 8000.
to the appellant the respondent had really come to pass the aforesaid
examination on 30.3.1989 as would appear from Notification No.55/BEF of 1987
(August) issued by the Controller of Examinations, as per document the
respondent had secured 5569 marks.
case of the respondent on the other hand is that the result of the examination
in question had been announced on 30.10.1987 and his result was withheld for
some technical reason and the same having been taken care of a formal
declaration of his result was made on 31st March, 1988. A perusal of the
impugned judgment shows that the Division Bench had by and large accepted the
case of the respondent and, therefore, held the appellant-commission was not
justified in taking a view that the respondent was not eligible for selection
for the post in question. As against this, learned single Judge had accepted
the case of the appellant.
Riaz A.Jan, learned counsel appearing for first respondent, took pains to
satisfy us that the statement of the respondent in his aforesaid application
that he had passed the examination as stated in the application form is
correct. Learned counsel has sought to sustain this submission by referring us,
inter alia, to the Certificate of the University that the respondent was
admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in the Year 1987 (August);
two communications of the Assistant Controller of Examinations which are dated
15.4.1992 and 1.10.1993 In the first communication it has been stated that the
respondent had passed the concerned examination which was held in August, 1987,
the result of which examination was declared vide Notification of even number
dated 23.10.1987. In the second, the Assistant Controller of Examinations has
sated that the result of the respondent was withheld because of incomplete
registration; and he should be deemed to have passed the said examination vide
Notification of 23.10.1987.
also referred by the learned counsel to the interview sheet prepared by the
Deputy Secretary of the appellant- Commission on 21.4.1992 in which column
three relating to B.E. Degree/marks reads as "UK 8/1987 DIV.I 69.7%. On
the strength of this Court's decision Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, 1980
(2) SCC 752, it is urged by the counsel that as the respondent's success in the
examination was brought to the knowledge of the selection committee before
completion of selection and as the result of the examination had been published
before that date, the respondent was eligible.
perusal of the concerned documents makes it clear that when the general results
were declared on 23.10.1987, as to the respondent it was stated `MPS/IR'. The
acronym "MPS" stands for marks for previous semester(s) awaited, and
"IR" for incomplete registration. it thus shows that the result of
the respondent had been withheld not only for incomplete registration but
non-availability of marks of his previous semester as well. On these having
become available, the result of the respondent was declared vide Notification
No.55/BEF of 1987 (August) on 31.3.1988, in which the marks obtained were also
given as 5569 out of 8000.
University's Certificate can be of no assistance to the respondent as it merely
says about the admission to the Degree in 1987 (August). As to when had this
event really taken place cannot be known from this document. The two
certificates of Assistant Controller of Examinations on which reliance has been
placed by the respondent's counsel cannot alter the position that by 13.2.1988,
when the respondent had applied for the post in question, he had not passed the
examination in question as had been stated by him in his application form. The
further wrong information given in the application form about securing of 5608
marks out of 8000 marks. It seems to us that a mention was made about marks
secured to lend credence to the statement made by the respondent that he had
passed the examination, which in fact he had not done by 13.2.1988.
we are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court took a wrong
view about the fulfilment of the eligibility condition. The decision of this
Court in the aforementioned case cannot be called in aid by the respondent
because there the question for examination was entirely different. The present
is a case where almost a fraud was sought to be played by the respondent by
giving wrong information as to his eligibility, benefit of which fraud cannot
be allowed to the respondent.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The result
is that the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 stands dismissed. On the
facts and circumstasnces of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own