Patna High Court
Dr. Hari Govind Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 October, 2016
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.651 of 2016
===========================================================
Arun Kumar Ajay, son of Ram Chandra Yadav, resident of Mohalla-Chanakya
Nagar, Kumhrar, P.S. Agamkuan, District-Patna, at present posted on contractual
basis at P.H. C, Pandarak, Patna.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, 15, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1019 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Dr. Hari Govind Prasad Son of Sita Ram Das resident of village - Narepur, P.O.
and P.S. Bachhwara, District - Begusarai
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Bailey Road, Patna
3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
5. The Joint Secretary - Cum - Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
6. Abhijit Das, through the Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1083 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Dr. Renu Singh Wife of Niranjan Kumar Singh Resident of village - Bisartalab,
Near IMA Hall, P.S. Civil Line, District - Gaya
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna through the Secretary
3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
5. The Joint Secretary - Cum - Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
2
Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
6. Mini Kumari, through Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1139 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Dr. Sudhir Kumar, Son of Sri Subhash Prasad, Resident of Village- Bhelwa,
P.O.+ P.S.- Chauradano, District- East Champaran
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Joint Secretary-cum-Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In LPA No.651 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. M.K. Ambastha, SC-26
Mr. Balram Kapri, AC to SC-26
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In LPA No.1019 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad, SC-20
Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate
(In LPA No.1083 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rishi Raj, SC-19
Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, AC to SC-19
For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Satybir Bharti, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
(In LPA No.1139 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
3
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT & ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH)
Date: 04-10-2016
There can be no gainsaying that doctrine of
equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India
has become synonym of fairness in the concept of justice
and it is most accepted methodology of State action. An
administrative action must satisfy the test of fair play and
reasonablenes, for the same to be treated as just and
sustainable.
2. The candidature of the appellants herein, for
their appointment on the post of Medical Officers in Bihar
Health Services, has been cancelled for certain reasons by
the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Commission'), which we shall refer to in our
present judgment and order.
3. The question, which we have posed to ourselves
for being answered in the present judgment, is as to whether
action of the Commission in cancelling the candidature of
these appellants, with particular reference to the manner in
which it has been done, can pass the test of fair play and
reasonableness and thereby Articles 14 and 16 of the
4
Constitution of India.
4. The appellants have put to challenge a common
judgment and order, dated 30.03.2016, passed in a batch of
writ applications filed by them under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, whereby the learned single Judge has
rejected the plea of the appellants that cancellation of their
candidature by the Commission was not justifiable. Learned
single Judge has referred to the Supreme Court's decision in
case of T. Jayakumar versus A. Gopu and another,
reported in (2008) 9 SCC 403.
5. We have heard Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior
Counsel, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.
Kishore Kumar Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellants
and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel & learned
Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of
the Respondents-State of Bihar.
6. There is not much dispute between the parties
over facts, except a minor one, though crucial, for the
present adjudication.
7. The facts of the case are that the Health
Department of the State Government of Bihar sent a
requisition to the Commission for making recommendations
for appointments against total of 2301 posts of General
5
Medical Officers. Pursuant to the said requisition, the
Commission came out with an advertisement, inviting
applications for filling up the said 2301 posts of General
Medical Officers. The advertisement disclosed the eligibility
criteria in terms of the educational qualification and age, etc.
Clause 5 of the said advertisement stipulated that the
selection shall be made on the basis of marks allotted
against educational qualification, work experience and
interview taken together and the merit list shall be prepared
on the basis of total marks scored by a candidate against the
said three heads. Distribution of marks against educational
qualification and interview was mentioned in the
advertisement itself, which was as follows: -
"A. Education Qualifications (for
Advertisement No.15.2014):
M.B.B.S. Degree from any recognized
University.
Post Graduation Degree holders in any
subject of Medical Science or Higher Degree holders
and Doctors appointment on Contract/Regular Basis in
any Govt. Hospital in Bihar would be given weightage
for their work experience.
There would be 100 marks for educational
qualifications, work experience and interview.
Division of 100 marks would be as follows:
Marks for M.B.B.S. : 50 Marks
Post Graduation or Higher Degree : 10 Marks
For work experience on Contract/
Regular in Govt. Hospitals : 25 Marks
(5 marks for every complete on year & maximum 25
marks)
Interview : 15 Marks"
8. It is evident from the said advertisement, which
6
has been brought on record by way of Annexures to the
present proceedings, that apart from educational
qualification and work experience, interview was the only
process through which the selection was intended to be
made.
9. Clause 8(ii) of the said advertisement has gained
significance, for the purpose of the present adjudication,
because of the stand taken on behalf of the Commission
before the writ Court and before us in appeal, as well, which
reads thus:
" (ii)fofgr vkosnu i= ds lkFk eSz z Vªhd izek.k i=] ,e-ch-ch-,l-
fMxzh izek.k i= rFkk lHkh o'kksZ dh ijh{kkvksa ds vad i= bUVuZ"khi izf"k{k.k izek.k
i=] lacaf/kr fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr dk;kZuqHko izek.k i= ¼ftlesa dk;Z djus
dh vof/k dk Li'V mYys[k gks½] LFkk;h fuca/ku izek.k i=] tkfr izek.k i=
¼vR;Ur fiNM+k@fiNM+k oxZ ds mEehnokjksa ds fy, dzzhehys;j jfgr izek.k i=] ds
lkFk½ ,oe~ fodykaxrk dk nkok djus dh fLFkfr esa l{ke izkf/kdkj }kjk fuxZr
rRlEcU/kh izek.k i= dh LovfHkizekf.kr izfr;k vuqyXud ds :i esa layXu djsa A
oSls mEehnokj ftUgksusa ,e-ch-ch-,l- dh fMxzh fdlh fons"kh
fo"ofo|ky; ls izkIr fd;k gks ,oa ftuds vad i= eesa vad dh txg
Good/Satisfactory/Excellent bR;kfn vafdsr gS] mUgsa vius fo"ofo|ky; ls
mDr vfHk;qfDr;ksa dks vadksa esa ifjofrZr djus dk QkewZyk izkIr dj vius vkosnu
ds lkFk layXu djuk gksxk] vU;Fkk muds vkosnu vLohd`r dj fn, tk,¡xsa A^^
10. Clause 8 (ii) of the said Advertisement, when
translated into English, read thus:
"(ii) Enclose self-attested copies of
Matriculation Certificate, Certificate of
M.B.B.S degree and mark-sheet of
examinations conducted every year,
certificate of Internship Training, work
7
experience certificate issued by the
concerned controlling Officer( which should
clearly mention period of work), permanent
Registration certificate, Caste certificate (
with certificate with creamy layer for
candidates belonging to Most Backward
class/Backward class) and in the case of
disability claim, certificate issued in
respect thereof by the competent
authority, as enclosure with the prescribed
application form.
Such candidates who have
obtained MBBS degree from any foreign
University and whose mark-sheet contains
remarks such as Good/Satisfactory/
Excellent-el etc, in place of marks, shall
have to enclose with his/her application the
formula to change said remarks, into
marks after obtaining it from his/her
University, otherwise their applications
shall be rejected".
11. The said Clause made it mandatory for the
applicants to enclose self attested copies of matriculation
certificate, M.B.B.S. degree certificate, mark-sheets of all the
examinations, work experience certificate issued by the
concerned Controlling authority disclosing explicitly the
period of work, permanent registration certificate, caste
certificate and certificate of disability, if applicable. The
appellants had submitted their applications. In course of
time, they were issued interview letters requiring them to
8
appear for the interview on the respective dates and time as
specified in the interview letter. Paragraph 2 of the interview
letter required the candidates to bring, in original, along with
two photo copies of age, the certificate and documents, viz,:-
(i) Matriculation certificate,
(ii) Certificate in support of M.B.B.S. degree
from a recognized University along with mark-
sheet of each year of M.B.B.S. course,
(iii) In case of P.G. degree holders, relevant
P.G. degree certificate,
(iv) Certificate of permanent registration of
Medical Council of India or Medical
Registration Council of any State,
(v) Work experience certificate issued by the
Controlling authority, for such applicants, who
were appointed on permanent/contract basis
as doctors in a Government Hospitals of the
State Government.
12. Paragraph 5 of the interview letter required that
in case a candidate failed to submit certificates, in original, in
support of his/her qualification, he shall not be allowed to be
interviewed. Clause 5 also required that original of only such
certificates shall be accepted at the interview, photo copies
9
whereof had been enclosed along with the application form.
13. This is not in dispute that the appellants
presented themselves for interview on the respective dates
and time as mentioned in the interview letter and they were,
in fact, interviewed by the Interview Board.
14. The centre of dispute between the stand of the
appellants and the Commission lies here. According to the
appellants, at the time of interview, they had submitted the
documents, in original, as were required to be furnished in
terms of Clause 2 of the advertisement. It is their specific
case that because they had submitted testimonials in
original, they were allowed to participate in the interview and
that had they not produced the certificates, in original, as
required under Clause 2 of the interview letter, they would
not have been allowed to participate in interview. It is also
their case that before or after they were interviewed, at no
point of time, any undertaking was taken by the Commission
from them to submit the certificates, in original, in future.
15. It is the plea of the Commission, on the other
hand, that these appellants had not submitted their
certificates, in original, at the time of interview and they
were required to submit their testimonials, in original, though
they had been allowed to be interviewed with an
understanding that they would submit to the Commission
10
original testimonials within a reasonable period of time.
16. It is the case of the Commission that the
Commission came out with a notice, on 16.07.2015,
mentioning therein that at the time of interview, some of the
candidates had not submitted their certificates, in original,
for verification and, on the basis of undertaking given by
them, they were allowed time to submit their certificates, in
original, in future. The Commission, through the said notice,
dated 16.07.2015, required such candidates to submit their
documents, in original, in the office of the Commission on
three different dates as mentioned in the said notice, viz,
22.07.2015, 23.07.2015 and 24.07.2015. Later on, the Commission came out with yet another notice, dated 20.08.2015, in the background of the fact that despite earlier notice, dated 16.07.2015, some of the candidates had yet not submitted their certificates, in original. Giving another opportunity through notice, dated 20.08.2015, such candidates, who had not submitted their certificates, in original, were required to submit the certificates hand to hand by 25.08.2015 in the office of the Commission. It was indicated in the said notice that with respect to such candidates, who do not submit their certificates, in original, in the light of the second notice, dated 20.08.2015, the Commission shall be free to take appropriate decision. The 11 notice also mentioned that such candidates, who had got their certificates, in originals, verified by the Inquiry Team of the Commission and submitted the photo copies of their original certificates, were not required to get their certificates verified again.
17. Situated thus, it becomes abundantly clear that while it is the case of the Commission that despite these opportunities made available to these appellants, they did not submit their certificates, in original, for verification, which compelled the Commission to take decision of cancelling their candidature, the case of the appellants, on the other hand, is that they were not required to respond the two notices as the said notices were meant only for those who had not submitted their certificates, in original, for verification at the time of interview. As has been noticed above, it is the case of the appellants that they had already submitted their documents, in originals, and their photo copies as required in paragraph 2 of the interview letter, at the time of interview.
18. It can be easily seen thus, which fact has already been noticed in a foregoing paragraph, that a dispute has been raised by the Commission that the appellants had not submitted their certificates, in original, at the time of interview, whereas, it is the claim of the appellants that they 12 had submitted the requisite certificates, in original, and, therefore, they were allowed to participate in the interview. This is also not in dispute that on the basis of their respective scores in the process of selection, the appellants would have been recommended by the Commission for appointments, had their candidatures not been cancelled on the ground as mentioned above.
19. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted, referring to paragraph 5 of the interview letter, that had the appellants not submitted their documents, in original, and not complied with the other requirements as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the interview, they would not have been allowed to appear before the Board for interview.
20. Referring to the first notice, dated 16.07.2015, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-D series to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission in the writ proceedings, Mr. Giri has submitted that it appears that the Commission had allowed extra time for submission of the document, in original, to some of the candidates, who were not in a position to submit their documents, in original, at the time of their interview, on the basis of undertaking. He has submitted that there is neither any pleadings on behalf of the Commission nor any materials 13 on record to suggest that these appellants had given any undertaking to the Commission to submit their certificates, in original, on the ground that they had submitted their certificates, in original, at the time of interview. He has accordingly submitted that in that background, the appellants did not respond to the notice, dated 16.07.2015, or the subsequent notice, dated 20.08.2015. He has also submitted that none of the two notices mentioned the names or roll numbers of the respective candidates, who had not submitted their documents, in original, as required. Had the Commission published the roll numbers or names in the said notices, the Commission could have taken a plea that despite notice, the appellants did not respond. As the Commission had not mentioned either the roll numbers of the respective candidates or their names in the notices concerned, the same cannot, according to Mr. Giri, learned Senior counsel, be treated to be the notices to these appellants. According to him, a notice to be become purposeful and effective must be clear, specific and unambiguous.
21. Assailing the order of the learned single Judge under appeal, Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, has contended that the decision of the Supreme Court, in case of T. Jayakuar versus A. Gopu and another (supra), referred to, and relied upon, by the learned single Judge has 14 no application in the special facts and circumstances of the present batch of cases available on record. According to him, it is not the case of the appellants that they were allowed to participate in the process of selection without completing the desired formalities for the purpose of submission of the applications or documents. On the other hand, he contends, the appellants had been allowed to participate in the interview since they had fulfilled all the conditions and the Commission, without duly noticing them, held them to have not submitted their documents, in original.
22. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Commission, on the other hand, defending the judgment and order under appeal, has submitted that the decision of the Commission to cancel the candidature of these appellants is for justifiable reasons inasmuch as the appelllants had failed to produce their documents, in original, for the purpose of verification at the time of interview and despite twice opportunities granted to them for the said purpose, they failed to avail the opportunities and, therefore, the Commission rightly cancelled their candidature. He has relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in case of T. Jayakumar versus A. Gopu and another (supra), which has been mentioned in 15 the order under appeal and has been relied upon by the learned single Judge.
23. Mr. Lalit Kishore has also contended that no bias and mala fide has been alleged against the members of the Commission or its staff engaged in holding the process of selection and, therefore, there could be no reason why the Commission would unnecessarily cancel the candidature of these appellants. According to him, it was rather, painful decision for the Commission to cancel the candidature of these appellants, because of the conduct of the appellants of not furnishing their certificates, in original, for the purpose of verification.
24. We will analyze, at the outset, as to whether the two notices issued by the Commission on 16.07.2015, and 20.08.2015, published in the newspapers, can be held to be clear and effective notices to the appellants, which could have made them respond to the notices and filed their documents, if they had not filed.
25. On close scrutiny of the notice, dated 16.07.2015, it can be easily seen that the Commission was faced with a situation that some of the candidates, at the time of the interview, in question, had not submitted educational certificates, in original, experience certificate and certificate of not being a creamy layer. Such candidates 16 were given extra time on the basis of "undertaking" given by them. The said notice, dated 16.07.2015, was issued, because the candidates, who were allowed time on the basis of undertaking given by them, had not deposited the certificates, in original. There is no mention in the said notice of either the roll numbers or the names of the candidates, who had been allowed time for submission of certificates, in original, on the basis of undertaking given by them and despite the fact that such candidates had not submitted their documents, in original.
26. It is not the case of the Commission that these appellants had ever given any undertaking before they were allowed to participate in the interview for submission of their certificates, in original, within some extended period. Apparently thus, the appellants were allowed to participate in the interview without any objection or any undertaking taken from them.
27. We, now, come to the interview letter, paragraph 5 of which mentions that a candidate must bring with him, certificates, in original, at the time of interview and if they failed to do so, they would not be allowed to appear in the process of selection. The fact that the appellants were allowed to participate in the interview without any objection having been raised would raise a presumption that they had 17 complied with the requirement of submission of certificates, in original, at the time of interview. Otherwise, they would not have been allowed to appear in the interview.
28. It would be beneficial to extract the contents of paragraph 5 of the interview letter, which read as follows:-
"5.;fn lk{kkRdkj ds fnu vki viuh ;ksX;rk lEcfU/kr Li'V izek.k i= ewy esa lefiZr ugha djsxsa rks vkidks lk{kkRdkj esa "kkehy ugha fd;k tk;sxk A ;ksX;rk laca/kh izek.k i= ugha ekU; gksxsa ftudk mYys[k vkius vius ewy vkosnu esa fd;k gS^A^^
29. Paragraph 5 of the interview letter, when translated into English, reads thus:
"(5) A candidate shall not be allowed to appear in interview if he/she does not submit his/her intelligible certificate in respect of qualifications in original on the day of interview. Only those certificates related to qualifications shall be deemed valid which are mentioned in the original application form of candidates."
30. Possibility that some of the candidates were allowed by the Commission to participate in the interview even without fulfilling the requirement of producing the certificates, in original, with an undertaking that they would submit those certificates within a reasonable period of time 18 cannot be ruled out. The Commission has, however, not been able to establish that undertakings were taken from these appellants also for submission of their certificates, in original, in future. Neither any chit of paper nor any kind of material has been produced before us to demonstrate that these appellants were told by the Commission, at the time of interview, that they were not having the certificates, in original, for the purpose of verification as contemplated in the interview letter. The only plea, which is being taken is that these appellants did not produce the documents, in original.
31. Further, if the Commission intended to inform by way of notice or otherwise, that documents, in original, were required to be submitted to the Enquiry Team of the Commission for the purpose of verification, it could have been specifically mentioned, in the notice, giving the roll numbers or names or both so that the candidates, who had not submitted their certificates, in original, could have submitted their certificates, in original, in response thereto and those, who had submitted and despite that their roll numbers/names were mentioned in the notice, they could have raised objection before the Commission against inclusion of their roll numbers/names in the notice.
32. The plea, taken by the appellants that they did 19 not respond pursuant to the notices, because they were not knowing that they were also being considered as candidates, who had not submitted their certificates, in original, at the time of interview, cannot be altogether brushed aside.
33. If the Commission had allowed such candidates to participate in the interview, who had not made available their certificates, in original, for the purpose of verification by an Inquiry Team on the basis of some undertaking given by them to submit their documents within the period specified, in all fairness in the first notice itself, dated 16.07.2015, the Commission could have disclosed the names or roll numbers or both of the candidates, who had failed to submit their certificates, in original, at the time of interview. Nothing could have prevented the Commission to act fairly by making known in the notice itself as to who were those candidates, who had given undertaking to submit their certificates, in original, in future and had not submitted.
34. By applying plain logic and reasonings, it can be easily understood that on the dates of interview of respective candidates, the Commission had allowed some of the candidates to be interviewed without their having submitted certificates, in original, on the basis of an undertaking that they would submit their documents, in original, in future. Further, it would be, ordinarily, presumed that such 20 candidates, who were allowed to participate in the interview by the Commission without taking any undertaking from them, had fulfilled all the requirements laid down in paragraph 5 of the interview letter.
35. This Court does not mean to say that it is unexceptionable that someone might have been allowed to participate in the interview without fulfilling the requirements of paragraph 5 of the interview letter, but in that case, it was incumbent upon the Commission to have either communicated to the respective candidates individually and/or come out with a clear notice on the basis of which it could have been said that defaulting persons were made known of the lapse on their part in submitting their documents, in original, for verification.
36. Similar is the situation with second notice, dated 20.08.2015, issued by the Commission, and the present appellants were such defaulters inasmuch as the notice, dated 20.08.2015, also suffers from the same defect and vagueness.
37. In our considered view, in the background of the facts narrated as above and discussions made, the action of the Commission in cancelling the candidature of the present appellants on the ground that despite the aforesaid two notices, they did not submit their certificates, in original, 21 cannot be said to be fair and reasonable. The Court finds the decision-making process of the Commission, leading to cancellation of the candidature of the appellants, not just and satisfying the test of reasonableness and fair play.
38. In case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maddula Ratnavalli and others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 81, the Supreme Court held that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness are the hallmarks of every action of the State within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a State is enjoined with a duty to act fairly and reasonably.
39. We can gainfully refer to the Supreme Court's decision in case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation (supra) too. In case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in ( 2008) 12 SCC 331, the Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of equality is, now, a synonym of fairness and every administrative action is required to be just on the test of fair play and reasonableness. Paragraph 20 of the said decision lays down the law on this point and reads thus:-
"20. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi- judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could 22 ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extent to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise or right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of "fair play" and reasonableness."
40. In the present case, what we have noticed is that the action of the respondents, which has the result of cancellation of candidature of the appellants from being considered for appointment to the post of General Medical Officers is based on a conclusion that they did not supply their testimonials, in original, for verification at the time of interview and they did not avail subsequent two opportunities granted to them for submission of their certificates, in original, before the Commission for the said purpose, cannot be regarded as unjust, unreasonable and unfair. As we have already observed, the two notices cannot be said to be adequate to establish that these appellants were found to have not submitted their documents, in original, at the time of interview. We have formed this 23 opinion, because the notices do not contain any description of these appellants either by their roll numbers or their names. Secondly, there is nothing on record to suggest, rather we do not find any clear pleading on record of the Commission, that these appellants had given any undertaking before they were allowed to be interviewed that they would be furnishing their documents, in original, later on.
41. We, accordingly, find merit in these appeals and in our view, the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned single Judge, needs interference and the writ applications, filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, deserve to be allowed.
42. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Secretary of the Commission to recommend the names of the appellants, whose score is above the cut-off marks of their respective category, on the basis of which recommendation has been made to the State for appointment as General Medical Officers in the light of the advertisement, in question, after verifying the respective documents, in original, of these appellants.
43. So that no further confusion crops up, it is also directed that the certificates, in original, of the appellants as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the interview letter shall be 24 required to be verified by the Commission or any Committee constituted for that purpose, if the appellants furnised their respective certificates, in original, personally to the Secretary of the Commission at any time between 10.30 A.M and 4.30 P.M. within a fortnight from today along with a copy of the present order. The Commission shall make recommendation to the State Government within a fortnight thereafter.
44. We are mindful of the facts over which there is no dispute that the vacancies, through the advertisement in question, have not been filled up so far.
45. With the directions and observations as above, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and order under appeal, dated 30.03.2016, stands accordingly set aside. Consequently, CWJC Nos. 18068 of 2015, 18033 of 2015, 19669 of 2015 and 18251 of 2015 shall stand allowed.
46. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
I.A.Ansari,CJ. : I agree.
(I. A. Ansari, CJ.)
ArunKumar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 28.07.2016
Uploading Date 05.10.2016
Transmission N/A
Date