Allahabad High Court
Union Public Service Commission vs Rajeshwar Singh And Anr. on 3 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)AWC2507, (2002)3UPLBEC2393
Bench: M. Katju, R.B. Misra
JUDGMENT
M. Katju and R.B. Misra, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 1.5.2002 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The respondent No. 1 was a candidate in the Civil Services (Main) Examination of 2001 where he has to appear in nine papers including two compulsory papers, namely, English and Indian Language (Hindi). He appeared in all the papers except English. As regards the English paper, he was to appear on 20.10.2001 in the afternoon from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. However, he fell victim of Food Poisoning (Castro enteritis and dehydration) and was hospitalised. He was discharged from hospital on 21.10.2001. Due to this illness, he could not appear in the English paper. However, after discharge, he appeared in the Hindi paper.
3. The copies of the petitioner were not examined by the Public Service Commission because he did not appear in the English compulsory paper. He made a representation to the Commission but that representation was rejected by the Commission by order dated 5.11.2001 (vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition).
4. He then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and his O.A. has been allowed.
5. Aggrieved by this order, the Union Public Service Commission has filed this writ petition before us.
6. The Tribunal has directed that a supplementary examination be held for the English paper for the petitioner in view of the fact that he had fallen ill and hence, he could not appear in the English paper.
7. Under the relevant rules, the English paper is of matriculation standard and is of a qualifying nature, but its marks are not added to the total marks, The purpose is to find out if the candidate has sufficient knowledge of English to express his ideas clearly. In earlier years, the petitioner had passed this examination in English, and this is his last chance.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no rule for holding of a supplementary examination or for relaxation from appearing in the English paper. Be that as it may, it is well-settled thai, writ jurisdiction is equity jurisdiction. In a writ petition, the petitioner has not only to showviolation of law, but he must also show that equity is in favour of the petitioner. Unless both these considerations are in the petitioner's favour, no writ will be issued in his favour. In the present case, it is not necessary to go into the question whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is valid or not since equity is not in favour of the petitioner, rather it is in favour of the respondent No. 1. It is not disputed by the petitioner that respondent No. 1's illness was a genuine illness and there is no challenge to it in this writ petition. There is no averment anywhere in the petition that the respondent No. 1 was not really ill, and hence this fact is undisputed. Since equity is in favour of the respondent No. 1, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case. It is well-settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and this Court is not bound to interfere even if there is error of law, vide Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller. AIR 1970 SC 769 (para 7) and Bombay Municipality v. Advance Builders, AIR 1972 SC 793 (para 13).
9. On the facts of this case, we are not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case as the Central Administrative Tribunal has given its judgment on humanitarian considerations and hence we see no reason to interfere with the same. The petition is dismissed. However, we direct that the supplementary examination of English paper for the petitioner shall be held within one month.