Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Andhra Pradesh Public Service ... vs K Prasad on 20 January, 2014
I
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. 4 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9140 OF 2013
ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ... Appellant (s)
Versus
K. PRASAD AND ANR. ... Respondent (s)
WITH
I.A. No. 3 in C.A No. 9141/2013
I.A Nos. 3-4 in C.A Nos. 9142-9143/2013
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in I.A Nos. 4 & I.A No. 3 and Mr. Adinarayana B. with Mrs. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned counsel appearing for A. Srinivasa Reddy and others in I.A Nos. 3-4. Heard counsel for the appellants. All the three applications seek modification of our order dated 7th October, 2013. The order was required in view of the problem which the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission itself created by providing totally wrong answers as correct for six questions. That order directed the Public Service Commission to conduct a fresh preliminary examination after deleting the six doubtful questions out of 150. That examination has now been conducted on the basis of 144 questions and we are informed that some sixteen thousand candidates have passed in the said preliminary examination. As per the order we have passed earlier, these candidates will have to be permitted to take the main examination.
2. I.A No. 4 filed by the A.P. Public Service Commission states in paragraph 2 thereof, that the commission is facing difficulty in implementing the direction issued by this Court. In paragraph 5 it is stated as follows:-
"5. It is submitted that the Main Examination is of 6 papers and has to be conducted in 5 centres, i.e. Hyderabad, Warangal, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupati, and in view of the unrest and volatile situation in the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions of the State for the last few months on account of the proposed bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, it may not be possible to hold the Main Examination for six days, in the near future."
3. Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission submitted that it would be difficult to hold the main examination for such large number of candidates at the centres other than Hyderabad because of the above referred volatile situation in the State. He submitted that the number of candidates now to be permitted to give the main examination should be restricted appropriately. His first submission was that in the Preliminary Examination now held only 209 candidates who had not qualified earlier have become successful on this occasion. He therefore, submits that the main examination to be now confined to 209 candidates only. His submission is supported by Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, learned counsel appearing for the successful candidates in the main examination held in the earlier round. She submits that these candidates who were successful in the earlier examination after putting in good efforts will now be required to appear again and they will have to study once again and this is not very fair as far as those candidates are concerned.
4. As far as this submission is concerned it is not possible to accept this for the reason that accepting the submissions of Mr. Salve and Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani to restrict the fresh examination to 209 candidates only, will mean that 209 candidates will answer one set of question papers whereas those who had passed the main examination on the earlier occasion, had answered another set of question papers. This will not withstand scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since two sets of candidates will be tested on the basis of two different sets of examination papers. It is ultimately their ranking in the main examination which is going to be relevant. Therefore, the main examination has to be a common examination for all those who are now held to be eligible on the basis of their passing the preliminary examination. This being so, the submission cannot be accepted.
5. The alternative submission of Mr. Salve is that out of the candidates who had succeeded in the preliminary examination on earlier occasion, 7711 had chosen not to appear in the main examination even though they had qualified in the first round. His submission is that at least those candidates who had chosen not to appear in the main examination earlier, should not be permitted to take the main examination now.
6. We note that these 7711 candidates had given up on their own their right to participate in the main examination on the earlier occasion. They had no grievance with the result of the preliminary examination held at that time. If the selections were to go ahead on the basis of the preliminary and the main examination held earlier, they did not want to compete therein. The preliminary examination has been directed to be held afresh by this Court in view of the objections raised with respect to six questions and answers by the candidates who were keen in passing the preliminary as well as the main examination and getting selected, which is not the case with the 7711 candidates. We therefore, find merit in this submission for the reason that having succeeded in the preliminary examination these 7711 candidates had chosen not to give the main examination on the earlier occasion. Therefore, these 7711 candidates shall be deemed to have given up their claim to participate in the main examination to be held de-novo.
7. In the circumstances, we modify our order dated 7.10.2013 to this extent that it will be permissible to the A.P. Public Service Commission to restrict the participation in the main examination to be held now to the approximately 16,000 candidates who have passed the fresh preliminary examination after excluding the above referred 7711 candidates. We further add that there will be age relaxation in favour of the candidates if any, who have crossed the age bar, because of the litigation. All the I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.
.........................................J. [ H.L. Gokhale ] ..........................................J. [ J. Chelameswar ] New Delhi Dated: January 20, 2014 ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. No. 4 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9140 OF 2013 ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Appellant(s) VERSUS K PRASAD AND ANR. Respondent(s) (For modification of Order dated 07.10.2013 and office report) WITH I.A. No.3 in C.A. No. 9141/2013 (For modification of Court’s Order dated 07.10.2013 and office report) I.A. Nos.3-4 in C.A. Nos. 9142-9143/2013 (For modification of Court’s Order dated 07.10.2013 and office report) Date: 20/01/2014 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv.
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari,Adv.
Mr. G. Vivekanand,Adv.
Mr. Adinarayana B.,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,Adv.
Mr. G. Balaji,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. J. Sudhir,Adv.
Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar,Adv.
Ms. Bina Madhavan,Adv.
Ms. Praseena E. Joseph,Adv.
Mr. Shivendra Singh,Adv.
Mr. Rahul Pandey,Adv.
For M/S. Lawyer’S Knit & Co,Advs.
Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.
Mr. Amit Nain,Adv.
Mr. Suchitra,Adv.
Mr. Amjad Maqbool,Adv.
Mr. Aditya Jain,Adv.
for Mr. G.N. Reddy,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order dated 7.10.2013 is modified to the extent indicated in the signed order and all the I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.
(A.S. BISHT) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
A.R.-CUM-P.S. COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)