1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4201 OF 2009 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.14326 OF 2006)

RAVINDER KUMAR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s)

                       VERSUS

VIDYADHIRAJ PANDEY & ORS.  Respondent(s)

WITH  SLP(C)NO.17915/2006 SLP(C)NO.21118 OF 2006 SLP(C)NO.16914/2006 SLP(C)NO.15801/2006 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4202  OF 2009 @ SLP(C)NO.8815/2007 CIVIL APPEAL NO.4200  OF 2009 @ SLP(C)NO.6780/2008

O R D E R

Delink Special Leave Petition(C)Nos.17915, 21118,  

16914 and 15801/2006 and list separately.

2. No order on the application for impleadment.

3. Leave  granted  in  Special  Leave  

Petition(C)Nos.14326/2006, 8815/2007 and 6780 of 2008.

Heard both sides.

4. In the District of Barabanki in Uttar Pradesh on  

30th July, 2004 the District Judge, who is the appointing  

authority for Class III and Class IV of subordinate service  

in  the  Judicial  Department,  invited  applications  for  

appointment  of  Class  III  and  Class  IV  employees  i.e.  

Stenographer, driver, Clerks, Process Servers etc.  A test  

was  held  on  29.08.2004  and  the  result  was  published  in  

November, 2004.  One Stenographer, one driver and certain  

other posts were advertised and some persons were selected

2

and appointed.  This recruitment was challenged before the  

High Court and the learned Single Judge found that there was  

interpolations in the various answers of the candidates and  

in  majority  of  the  cases,  the  candidates  who  had  been  

selected,  marks  had  been  added  on  and  marks  have  been  

clandestinely boosted up to make their selection.  Aggrieved  

by this decision of the learned Single Judge, some of the  

candidates filed appeals before the Division Bench and the  

Division Bench, by the judgment dated 19th July, 2006 upheld  

the judgment  of the  learned Single  Judge in  part.  The  

Division Bench held that as regards the selection of one  

driver  and  stenographer  there  was  no  illegality  but  as  

regards the selection of the other candidates it was held  

that as there was large scale interpolations in the answer  

sheets, the selection of these candidates has been set aside  

and while disposing off the matter, the Division Bench gave  

the following directions :

“(1)The  decision  of  quashing  select  lists  dated  4.11.2004  and  5.11.2004  prepared  by  District  Judge,  Barabanki  for  recruitment  to  Class-IV  and  Class-III  respectively is confirmed;

(2)The  appointment  to  the  post  of  Stenographer  and  Driver  is  held  valid.  The  judgment  in  appeal  is  modified to this extent;

(3)  The  judgment  in  appeal  so  far  as  it  contains  provision  for  restoration  of  the  service  of  ad-hoc  employees or recruitment of employees from amongst the  quashed lists on ad-hoc basis is set aside;....”

3

5. The Division Bench had also stated that the District  

Judge,  Barabanki  should  take  recourse  to  the  fresh  exercise  

conducting  written  competitive  test  for  recruitment  to  the  

Class-III  posts  of  candidates.   After  the  judgment  of  the  

Division Bench, the District Judge, Barabanki issued a fresh  

Notification on 8th October, 2006.  It appears that through the  

process of selection one candidate had sought a clarification  

from the Division Bench and the same Division Bench passed the  

impugned order stating that the District Judge was not justified  

in calling for fresh applications on 8th October, 2006 and that  

the  selection  process  should  have  been  confined  to  the  

candidates who had already submitted their applications pursuant  

to  the  Notification  dated  30th July,  2004.   This  order  is  

challenged before this Court by the High Court. Learned counsel  

appearing for the petitioners pointed out that in the earlier  

judgment  there  was  a  direction  for  de  novo  selection  and,  

therefore, the District Judge was justified in calling for fresh  

applications and the subsequent clarification order passed by  

the Division Bench was not proper. We are not inclined to accept  

this contention.  The learned single Judge as also the Division  

Bench  specifically  directed  that  there  should  be  a  de  novo  

selection in the sense that there should be a fresh written test  

and  interview  confining  to  the  candidates  who  had  already  

submitted their applications pursuant to the Notification issued  

in  2004.   There  was  no  specific  direction  in  the  earlier  

judgment of the Division Bench to the effect that the District

4

Judge should call for fresh applications.  There was a direction  

that for recruitment, instead of 1947 Rules, 1950 Rules  should  

be followed for selection of the candidates and that of course,  

the District Judge is bound to follow.  The contention of the  

learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  that  the  District  Judge  

should call for fresh applications is not warranted either by  

the earlier judgment of the Division Bench or by the impugned  

judgment by the Division Bench.  In the circumstances, we find  

no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.  

6. The  candidates,  who  had  been  selected,  filed  a  

separate appeal praying that as regards these candidates against  

who no manipulations/interpolations are attributed in the answer  

sheets and their appointments shall be upheld as they had  not  

resorted to any malpractice in the selection and the Division  

Bench  was  not  justified  in  setting  aside  their  selection  

especially when the Division Bench had upheld the selection of  

one driver and one stenographer. It may be noticed that out of  

24 candidates selected it was noticed by the learned Single  

Judge  as  well  as  by  the  Division  Bench  that  there  were  

interpolations in the case of 21 candidates and when such large-

scale malpractice was resorted to by the persons involved in the  

selection, it is not justifiable to uphold such selection and to  

grant relief to these appellants.  Of   course  these appellants

5

are  entitled  to  participate  in  the  second  selection.  

Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.  No costs.

...............CJI. (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.................J.     (P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI; 9TH JULY, 2009.