NDLI: Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Selection Process Service Law
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Disposed Off
Headnote	Service Law: Selection process – Criteria for selection – Challenged by candidates – Rule of estoppel – Applicability of – It is a general preposition that a candidate, who participates in a selection without a demur taking a calculated chance to get selected cannot turn around and challenge the criteria of selection and the constitution of the selection committee – However, in the instant case, Commission had not published any criteria on the basis of which candidates were to be subjected for selection process and the candidates participated in the selection without knowing the criteria of selection – In such situation, they cannot be shut out from challenging the process of selection when ultimately they came to know that Commission step by step had diluted the merit in selection – Further when the written examination as notified earlier was scrapped and every eligible candidate was called for interview giving a go bye to a fair and reasonable process for shortlisting the candidates for interview, that too only by Chairman of the Commission whereas decision regarding criteria of selection was to be taken by Commission, the candidates have every right to challenge the entire selection process so conducted – Rule of estoppel.Service Law: Selection process – Decision to cancel the written examination and to call the candidates for interview eight times number of vacancies on minimum percentage of marks as fixed therein and a subsequent decision to call all the eligible candidates for interview – Propriety of – Held: These decisions were arbitrary decision to change the selection criteria which have effect of downgrading the merit in the selection – The present is a case where change in criteria was affected and altered arbitrarily with the object of down-grading and not up-grading the standards of selection. Service Law: Haryana Staff Selection Commission – Selection for the post of PTI – Criteria for selection – Power vested in Commission to fix the criteria for selection – By notification dated 28.07.1998, the Commission was empowered to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection of post for which requisition is sent to it by a Department or an office, as it may deem appropriate – As per notification dated 21.06.2007, the Commission is to consist of nine members including the Chairman – The selection on various posts was to be conducted as per the criteria fixed by the Commission – There are no separate statutory rules providing for criteria for recruitment for different posts including the post of PTI. Service Law: Haryana Staff Selection Commission – Multi- member body – Decisions taken by the Chairman – Binding effect – Held: The statutory notifications when entrust the Commission to devise the mode of selection and fix the criteria and the Commission being multi-member body, Chairman alone was not competent to alter the mode of selection and the criteria, which was fixed and published for conducting the selection for the post of PTI – The Commission being a multi-member body, all decisions pertaining to mode of selection and criteria was to be taken by the Commission itself, there being no rules or resolution delegating the said power to Chairman or any other member – The decision of not holding written examination, decision to screen on the basis of eight times of vacancies and percentage of marks and decision to call all eligible candidates, were all decisions taken by the Chairman himself, which decisions cannot be said to be decisions of the Commission. Service Law – Selection process – Posts of PTI – Staff Selection Commission, a multi-member body – Decision of Chairman of the Commission to change selection process i.e. not to hold the written examination due to “administrative reasons” – As per the advertisement for the selection of posts of PTI, the Commission had published the criteria for selection on 28.12.2006 which was implemented also– The decision for not holding the written examination and steps taken consequent thereto were all arbitrary decisions, unsustainable in law – Power to device the mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection was entrusted on the Commission to further the object of selection on merit to fill up post in State in consonance with the provisions of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – The Commission being recruiting body abdicated its obligation of screening out the best candidates – When the alteration of criteria has been made, which has obviously affected the merit selection, the allegations which have been made in the writ petition against the Commission in conducting the selection are allegations of malice-in-law and not malice-in-fact– The observation of the High Court that “it cannot be a mere co- incidence that 90% of the meritorious candidates in academics performed so poorly in viva voce that they could not secure even 10 marks out of the 30 marks or that the brilliance got configurated only in the average candidates possessing bare eligibility” where inferences drawn from result sheet re-affirmed the allegations of malice-in-law. Service law: Selection process – High Court’s direction to quash the selection made by the Selection Commission and to hold fresh selection – Held: In the instant case, the directions ought to have been issued to complete the process from the stage of holding the written test – All the candidates who had applied for the post of PTI including those selected, ought to have been permitted to take the written test –There was no requirement of fresh advertisement and inviting fresh applications –All the applicants who applied in response to advertisement had right to participate in selection as per criterion notified on 28.12.2006 –Thus, High Court’s direction to quash the selection made by the Selection Commission and to hold fresh selection is modified – The Commission shall conclude the entire process initiated by the advertisement as per criterion notified on 28.12.2006 – All the applicants who had submitted applications in response to the advertisement including those who were selected shall be permitted to participate in the fresh selection. Words and Phrases: Expression “malice in fact” and “malice in law” are two well-known concepts in law – The malice in law has been dealt as “something done without lawful excuse” – The malice in law is also malafide exercise of power, exercise of statutory power for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 332
Petitioner	Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors.
Respondent	Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.
SCR	[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1096
Judgement Date	2020-04-08
Case Number	2103

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (dsssb) & Ors.

State of Bihar Vs. Kumar Promod Narain Singh and Ors.

Avinash C. & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors.

Sher Singh and Ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar and Ors.

Apsrtc and Ors. Vs. Sri A. Sanjeev Reddy

State of J & K and Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.

Satyapal Singh Vs. The Haryana State Subordinate Selection Board and Ors.

Tejinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Lady Constable Raj Kumari & Ors.

Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.

Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sachin Kumar & Ors. Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (dsssb) & Ors.

State of Bihar Vs. Kumar Promod Narain Singh and Ors.

Avinash C. & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors.

Sher Singh and Ors. Vs. Surinder Kumar and Ors.

Apsrtc and Ors. Vs. Sri A. Sanjeev Reddy

State of J & K and Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors.

Satyapal Singh Vs. The Haryana State Subordinate Selection Board and Ors.

Tejinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Lady Constable Raj Kumari & Ors.

Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.