Home » State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi

PSC Recruitment – Decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out.

If we accept the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the respondents it would result in a situation where a person having ‘normalized score’ of 50% marks or above may be out of reckoning because his raw marks were less than 50%; and, there are sizable number of such persons. At the same time, someone whose ‘normalized score’ was well below 50% may still be part of the Select List because his “raw marks” were above 50%. If the intent is to see that every candidate must have obtained minimum 50% marks and those ‘candidates failing to obtain 50% marks in each of the above subjects shall not be eligible for recruitment’ as mandated by Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules or by paragraph 9 of the notification dated 28.6.2017, even going by the context and purposive interpretation, the expression ‘marks’ must be given the same meaning at both the stages; and the only possible meaning that can be ascribed is ‘normalized score’. Adopting different standards as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents would result in anomalous situations. Such anomaly will however stand removed if the expression ‘marks’ appearing in Rules 15(b) and 15(e) stages is construed in the same light and as ‘normalized score’. 80 The submissions advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General and other learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, merit acceptance. In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board in adopting the process of normalization at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by the High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at any juncture of the process. We have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the challenge raised on behalf of the State and allowing these appeals and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court presently under challenge. The results declared by the Board on 28th February 2019 shall now be given effect as early as possible. It must, however, be observed that the State and the Board had permitted candidates from both the categories i.e. who had secured more than 50% ‘raw marks’ as well as those who had secured more than 50% ‘normalized score’, as detailed in paragraph 5 hereinabove. Such candidates had participated in all the further stages, namely, in physical standard test, physical efficiency test, though some of them from the first category were finally disqualified on the ground that they had secured less than 50% ‘normalized score’. The State may consider making some allowance in favor of such subsequently disqualified candidates either by granting some weightage and/or age relaxation in the next selection. [Para 51 – 56]

Case Law Reference

  1. P. Singaravelan v. District Collector, (2020)3 SCC 133
  2. State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das, (2019) 6 SCC 270
  3. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376
  4. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Yadav, (2018) 3 SCC 706
  5. Sunil Kumar v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2016) 2 SCC 495
  6. Mahinder Kumar v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 87
  7. Sanjay Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2007) 3 SCC 720
  8. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Omaditya Verma, (2005) 4 SCC 424
  9. U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit, (2003) 12 SCC 701
  10. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359
  11. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 632
  12. C.G. Govindan v. State of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 625
  13. CIT v. Deejay Hatcheries, (1995) 211 ITR 652 (Bom)
  14. CIT v. Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd., (1988) 174 ITR 231 (AP)
  15. Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar v. District Magistrate, (1956) SCR 644

Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 228 – 235  OF 2022 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29972, 30456, 30607, 30552  of 2019; 3157 of 2020, 322, 323, 324 of 2022; 7 January, 2022

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran.

Case Link : https://pdf.caselaw.in/sc/2022/01/1135/

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, AOR Mr Sanjeev Gupta, Adv. Mr. D.K.Devesh (AOR) Ms. Pooja (Advocate) Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha (Advocate) Mr. Durga Dutt, AOR Mr. Rohit Priyadarshi, Adv. Dr. Sushma Singh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Somesh Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Amarendra Choubey, Adv. Dr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jitendra Nath Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Adv Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv Mr. Jainendra Kumar Ojha, Adv Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, Adv Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mr. Suyash Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Madhumay Mishra, Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Mr. Priyank Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR Adv. Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv. Mr.D.N. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sudhir Rawat, Adv. Dr. Bheem Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr.R.K.Singh Adv Mrs.Neeraj Singh Adv Mr.Kumar Gaurav Adv Ms. Ritu Reniwal Ms. Anzu.K.Varkey AOR Mr.R.K.Singh,Adv Mrs Neeraj Singh Adv Mr Kumar Gaurav Adv Ms Ritu Reniwal Adv Mr Robin Khokhar AOR Mr.R.K.Singh,Adv Mrs Neeraj Singh Adv Mr Kumar Gaurav Adv Ms Ritu Reniwal Adv Mr. Aman Rastogi, Adv. Mr Sanjay Rastogi, AOR Mr Robin Khokhar AOR Mr. Mahendra Kumawat, Adv. Mr Arvind Aggarwal, Adv Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Sachin Upadhyay, Adv Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava , Adv. Mr. Vinod Diwakar, AAG Ms. Garima Prasad, Adv.(SC) Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. V M Kannan, Adv. Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr.Amit, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Kajal Rani, Adv. Ms. Jeetendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Surendra Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. Bharat J. Joshi, Adv. Mr.Vishal Arun Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anbarasan Nathar Paul, Adv. Mr. Ikshit Singhal, Adv Mr. Vipin Kumar Saxena, Adv Mr. Maneesh Saxena, Adv. Mr. Sujata K. Muni, Adv. Mr. Kunwar Siddharth Singh, Adv. For M/s. Mukesh Kumar Singh & Co.,AOR Mr. R.K. Singh Adv. Ms. Neeraj Singh Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav Adv. Ms. Ritu Reniwal Adv. Mrs Ruma Patak, Adv Mr. Tom Joseph (AOR) Mr. R.K. Singh Adv. Ms. Neeraj Singh Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav Adv. Ms. Ritu Reniwal Adv. Mr. Aman Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Rastogi, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR Mr. Sankalp Narain, Advocate Ms. Pallavi Pratap, ADV Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv. M/S Pratap & Co. AOR Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AoR Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv Mr. M.P.Parthiban, Adv. Md. Saquib Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amod Kumar Bidhuri ,Adv. Mr. Raghwendra Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Ravi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Amrita KumarI, AOR (Impleader) Mr. Akbar Ali, Adv. Mr. Salim Ansari, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR for Applicant Dr. Brij Bhushan K. Jauhari, Adv Ms.Purnima Jauhari, AOR Mr. Harsh Mahan, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Mr. Atul Mahan, Adv. Mr. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Prashant Mishra, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Saran, Adv. Mr. Tarun Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Anuroop Chakravarti, Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Sushma Vyas, Adv. Mr. Adit Pujari, Adv. Mr. Amit, Adv. Ms. Sujata Muni, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Adv. Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Abbula Kalam, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv. Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. Prashant Mishra, Adv. Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv. Mr. Neha Pathak, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arvind C, Adv. Mr. Vinay Bhardwaj, Adv. Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Atulesh Kumar, AOR Mr.Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr.Vishal Thakre, Adv. Mr.Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Divhyash Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Suchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr.Binod Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Ms. Pooja, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shanker Jha, Adv. Mr. Shish Pal Laler, Adv. Mr. Ravi Panwar, AOR Mr. Anand Misha, AOR Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Ms. Rachana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manoj Tomar, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Yadav , AOR Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Adv Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shweta Yadav, Adv. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Mr. Krishna M. Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Adv Mr. Vishal Singhal, Adv. Mr. Ravleen Chhabra, Adv. Mr.Anand Nandan, Advocate Mr.Hassan Zubair Waris, Advocate Mr.Amit Pawan, Advocate on Record Ms. Nidhi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr.Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Adv Mr. Anand Mishra, AOR Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Adv. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Adv. Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Ms.Richa Kapoor,Aor Mr. Kunal Anand, Adv. Mr. Badri Prasad Singh, AOR Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR Petitioner-in-person, AOR

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 1 Average: 5]