http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: JAMMU & KASHMIR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: FARHAT RASOOL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1995

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 621 1995 SCALE  (6)182

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                           JUDGMENT HANSARIA. J.      Special leave granted. 2.   The appellant  is  Jammu  and  Kashmir  Public  Service Commission. It  has felt aggrieved at the mandamus issued to it by the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to declare  the result  of respondent  No.1’s selection  and forward the same to the State, to whom direction given is to appoint the  respondent to  the post  of Assistant  Engineer (Elect) and  to treat  him as having been appointed from the date other  candidates whose names found place in the select list were  appointed and  give him all consequential service benefits. 3.   The appellant  has a serious grievance to the direction issued by  the Division Bench who set aside the order of the single  Judge,  who  dismissed  the  writ  petition  of  the respondent in limine. 4.   According to  the appellant,  the  aforesaid  direction were not  merited inasmuch  the respondent  had made a false declaration, when he had applied for the post in question on 13.2.1988 stating,  inter alia,  that  he  had  passed  B.E. examination  in  1987  securing  5608  marks  out  of  8000. According to the appellant the respondent had really come to pass the  aforesaid examination on 30.3.1989 as would appear from Notification  No.55/BEF of  1987 (August) issued by the Controller of  Examinations, as  per document the respondent had secured 5569 marks. 5.   The case  of the  respondent on  the other hand is that the result of the examination in question had been announced on 30.10.1987 and his result was withheld for some technical reason and  the same  having been  taken care  of  a  formal declaration of  his result  was made  on 31st March, 1988. A perusal of  the impugned  judgment shows  that the  Division Bench had  by and  large accepted the case of the respondent and,  therefore,   held  the  appellant-commission  was  not justified in  taking a  view that  the  respondent  was  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

eligible for  selection for the post in question. As against this, learned  single Judge  had accepted  the case  of  the appellant. 6.   Shri Riaz  A.Jan, learned  counsel appearing  for first respondent, took  pains to  satisfy us that the statement of the respondent  in his  aforesaid application  that  he  had passed the  examination as stated in the application form is correct.  Learned   counsel  has   sought  to  sustain  this submission by  referring us,  inter alia, to the Certificate of the  University that  the respondent  was admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in the Year 1987 (August); and  two  communications  of  the  Assistant  Controller  of Examinations which  are dated 15.4.1992 and 1.10.1993 In the first communication  it has  been stated that the respondent had passed  the concerned  examination  which  was  held  in August, 1987,  the result  of which examination was declared vide Notification  of even  number dated  23.10.1987. In the second, the  Assistant Controller  of Examinations has sated that the  result of  the respondent  was withheld because of incomplete registration;  and he  should be  deemed to  have passed the said examination vide Notification of 23.10.1987. We are also referred by the learned counsel to the interview sheet prepared  by the  Deputy Secretary  of the  appellant- Commission on  21.4.1992 in  which column  three relating to B.E. Degree/marks  reads as  "UK 8/1987  DIV.I 69.7%. On the strength of  this Court’s  decision Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, 1980 (2) SCC 752, it is urged by the counsel that as the  respondent’s success  in the examination was brought to  the   knowledge  of   the  selection   committee  before completion of selection and as the result of the examination had been  published before  that date,  the  respondent  was eligible. 7.   A perusal  of the  concerned documents  makes it  clear that when  the general  results were declared on 23.10.1987, as to  the respondent  it was  stated ‘MPS/IR’.  The acronym "MPS" stands for marks for previous semester(s) awaited, and "IR" for  incomplete registration.  it thus  shows that  the result of  the respondent  had been  withheld not  only  for incomplete registration but non-availability of marks of his previous semester as well. On these having become available, the result  of the respondent was declared vide Notification No.55/BEF of  1987 (August) on 31.3.1988, in which the marks obtained were also given as 5569 out of 8000. 8.   The University’s Certificate can be of no assistance to the respondent  as it merely says about the admission to the Degree in  1987 (August).  As to  when had this event really taken place  cannot be  known from  this document.  The  two certificates of  Assistant  Controller  of  Examinations  on which reliance  has been  placed by the respondent’s counsel cannot alter  the  position  that  by  13.2.1988,  when  the respondent had  applied for the post in question, he had not passed the examination in question as had been stated by him in his application form. The further wrong information given in the  application form about securing of 5608 marks out of 8000 marks.  It seems  to us  that a  mention was made about marks secured  to lend credence to the statement made by the respondent that he had passed the examination, which in fact he had not done by 13.2.1988. 9.   So, we  are of  the opinion  that the Division Bench of the High Court took a wrong view about the fulfilment of the eligibility condition.  The decision  of this  Court in  the aforementioned  case   cannot  be   called  in  aid  by  the respondent because  there the  question for  examination was entirely different.  The present  is a  case where  almost a fraud was  sought to  be played  by the respondent by giving

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

wrong information  as to  his eligibility,  benefit of which fraud cannot be allowed to the respondent. 10.  The appeal  is, therefore,  allowed. The impugned order is set  aside. The result is that the writ petition filed by the respondent  No.1 stands  dismissed.  On  the  facts  and circumstasnces of  the case,  we leave  the parties  to bear their own costs throughout.