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

PETITIONER: KUMARI ANAMICA MISHRA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,ALLAHABAD AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1989

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH SAWANT, P.B. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  JT 1989 (4)   410        1989 SCALE  (2)1095

ACT:     Uttar Pradesh Educational Service-Junior Scale  (Women’s Branch)--Upper Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Women)--Recruit- ment of--Written test--Improper feeding of  computer--Conse- quent interview and selection of candidates securing  lesser marks  in  written test-Cancellation of  entire  recruitment examination and reholding it-Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     The  Uttar Pradesh Public Service  Commission  conducted recruitment  examination  to the post of  Upper  Zila  Basic Shiksha  Adhikari  (Women) in two stages--written  test  and interview.  The Commission cancelled the entire  recruitment examination  for re-holding it, after it was found that  due to improper feeding into the computer candidates who secured lesser marks in the written examination were interviewed and finally selected while candidates who had better performance were  not called for interview. Writ  petitions  challenging the  action  of the Commission were dismissed  by  the  High Court. Hence these appeals.     Allowing  the appeals and setting aside the judgment  of the High Court, this Court,     HELD:  When no defect was pointed out in regard  to  the written  examination and the sole objection was confined  to exclusion of a group of successful candidates in the written examination  from the interview, there was no  justification for cancelling the written part of the recruitment  examina- tion. [125G]     The  situation on the other hand could have been  appro- priately met by setting aside the recruitment and asking for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates on the basis of the  written examination and selection of those who  on  the basis  of the written and the freshly-held interview  became eligible for selection. [125H; 126A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  4582- 4585 of 1989. 125     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  29.7.1988  of  the

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

Allahabad  High  Court in C.M.W.P. No. 11933  &  16493/1987. 1573 1/1987 & 12373/1987.     R.K. Garg, S.P. Singh, N.M. Popli, R.B. Misra, Uma  Nath Misra and R.C. Kaushik for the Appellants. R.B. Mehrotra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. Special leave granted.     The short question in these appeals is as to whether the High Court was right in upholding the decision of the  Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission to re-hold the recruitment examination.     On  the  requisition of the State Government  the  State Public Service Commission had undertaken the recruitment  to the  post  of  Upper Zila Basic  Shiksha  Adhikari  (Women), District  Inspectress  of Girls  Schools/Associate  Regional Inspectress  of Girls Schools in Uttar  Pradesh  Educational Service--Junior  Scale  (Women’s Branch)  The  advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates was published on  May 5, 1985 and a corrigendum was published on  June  8, 1985. The recruitment examination was in two stages--written and  interview/personality test. After the written  examina- tion was over, on the basis of the results thereof  success- ful  candidates  upto a base limit have to be called  to  be interviewed. On account of improper feeding into the comput- er some of the candidates who had better performance in  the written examination were not called and candidates  securing lesser marks in the written examination were not only called for  interview  but were also finally  selected.  When  this position was known and upon an inquiry was factually  estab- lished, the Public Service Commission decided to cancel  the entire  recruitment examination and asked for re-holding  of it.  The  High  Court has upheld the action  of  the  Public Service Commission and has dismissed the writ petitions.     We  have  heard counsel for the parties and are  of  the view  that when no defect was pointed out in regard  to  the written  examination and the sole objection was confined  to exclusion of a group of successful candidates in the written examination  from the interview, there was no  justification for cancelling the written part of the recruitment  examina- tion.  On  the  other hand, the situation  could  have  been appropriately  met  by  setting aside  the  recruitment  and asking for a 126 fresh  interview of all eligible candidates on the basis  of the written examination and select those who on the basis of the  written and the freshly-held interview became  eligible for selection.     We allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court  and direct that the order of the Public Service  Com- mission  cancelling  the  written  examination  shall  stand vacated.  In lieu thereof we direct that the results of  the written examination shall stand sustained and shall form the basis  for the interview part of the recruitment and on  the basis  of the two examinations and in terms of the  recruit- ment rules fresh selections shall be made. We would  clarify that  with the dismissal of the special leave petitions  the selection  of  the two Scheduled Caste candidates  and  five Backward Class candidates has become final and would not  be disturbed.     The  State  Public Service Commission should  have  been more  careful in dealing with the matter so that four  years in  the process of recruitment would not have been lost  and the public cause would not have suffered; public time  would not have been wasted in requiring re-doing of what had  once been  done  and the litigation could have been  avoided.  We

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

have also not been able to appreciate the justification  for cancellation of the written part of the recruitment examina- tion  and drive the candidates to litigation. On  the  facts alleged  we direct that the recruitment which is now  to  be re-done  by completing the interview examination  should  be finalised within four months hence. There shall be no order as to costs. T.N.A.                              Appeals allowed. 127