RESHMA SULTANAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

184                       [2022]
               SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 184
                              REPORTS                     [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A                         RESHMA SULTANA
                                     v.
                  THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 3484 of 2022)
                               MAY 10, 2022
B
              [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
             Service Law – Selection – Selection process – Fraud, collusion
      and manipulation – Post of full-time College Lecturer in Urdu subject
      – Single Judge of High Court in a writ petition set aside the
      appointment of appellant, finding it to be vitiated by fraud and
C
      manipulation and thereafter passed an order directing to forward
      necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities
      for purpose of appointing respondent no.10-original writ petitioner
      – Judgment of Single Judge confirmed by Division Bench of High
      Court in writ appeal – Whether after holding the appointment of
D     appellant to be not valid, the High Court could have thereafter
      directed for appointment of respondent No.10-original writ petitioner
      – Held: Once the entire selection process was found to be vitiated
      due to fraud, collusion and manipulation, thereafter the Single judge
      of High Court ought to have passed the order for a fresh selection
      after following the due process of selection as required – Moreover,
E
      respondent no.10 is also seeking appointment pursuant to the very
      selection process/recruitment process which is found to be fraudulent
      and suffers from manipulation of record – Under the circumstances,
      direction issued by the Single Judge, which was not interfered with
      by the Division Bench directing to forward the documents of
F     respondent No.10 to consider his case for appointment is
      unsustainable – Fresh selection process be initiated for filling up
      the post of Urdu Lecturer after following due process under
      supervision of respondent No.2-Commissioner of Collegiate
      Education.
G           Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD:1. The Single Judge of the High Court has, on
      appreciation of entire material on record, specifically found that
      the entire selection process was vitiated by fraud and there was
      a manipulation of the record and no resolution, on the basis of
H
                                      184
 RESHMA SULTANA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                        185


which the appellant was appointed was in existence and there            A
was an interpolation. Once the entire selection process was found
to be vitiated due to fraud, collusion and manipulation, thereafter
the Single judge ought to have passed the order for a fresh
selection after following the due process of selection as required.
It is to be noted that the original writ petitioner is also seeking
                                                                        B
appointment pursuant to the very selection process/recruitment
process which is found to be fraudulent and suffers from
manipulation of record. Under the circumstances, the direction
issued by the Single Judge, which was not interfered with by the
Division Bench directing to forward the documents of the
respondent No.10– original writ petitioner to consider his case         C
for appointment is unsustainable. [Paras 6, 6.1][188-E-F, H;
189-A-B]
      2. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the
appointment of the appellant by the Single Judge confirmed by
the Division Bench is concerned, apart from the fact that this          D
Court had issued a limited notice, even on merits also and
considering the fact that the entire selection process/recruitment
process was found to be fraudulent and it was found that there
was a manipulation in the resolution and as such no resolution
was passed to appoint the appellant, it cannot be said that the         E
Single Judge committed any error in quashing and setting aside
the appointment of the appellant. The same has been righty
confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 7]
[189-B-D]
       3. However, that part of the direction/order passed by the       F
Single Judge by which the Single Judge directed to forward
necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities
for the purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-
time Lecturer in Urdu subject, which is not interfered with by
the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby quashed and set
aside. A fresh selection process be initiated for filling up the post   G
of Urdu Lecturer after following due process as required and the
same shall be monitored and supervised by respondent No.2 -
Commissioner of Collegiate Education and this exercise be
completed preferably within a period of three months.
[Para 8][189-E-G]                                                       H
186            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3484
      of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2020 of the High Court
      of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in W.P. No.100066 of 2020 (S-RES).
            Ms. Amrita Sharma, Darpan K. M., Hetu Arora Sethi, Advs. for
B     the Appellant.
           Rajesh Mahale, V. N. Raghupathy, Mohd. Iqbal Khairati, Gaurav
      Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C           M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 24.09.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High
      Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad, in W.A. No. 100066 of 2020
      by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said
D     appeal preferred by the appellant herein – original respondent No.10,
      the appellant herein – original respondent No.10 - Reshma Sultana has
      preferred the present appeal.
            2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:-
             2.1 That respondent No. 10 herein – Ilyas Ahmed Patwegar –
E     original writ petitioner applied for the post of Urdu Teacher in Nehru
      Arts, Science and Commerce Degree College, Hubli, run by Anjuman-
      E-Islam Education Board. He was appointed on 1.7.2002. Later, an
      advertisement was published in the local newspaper on 26.8.2007 calling
      for the filling up of posts of Urdu Lecturers in the same College. The
F     original writ petitioner also submitted his application.
             Interviews for different posts were conducted on 23.10.2007. The
      Management informed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education that
      in respect of Urdu subject, it was resolved to appoint a highly
      knowledgeable subject expert and to seek his opinion before making any
G     appointment and accordingly Urdu Teacher’s appointment was
      postponed. On 13.3.2009 the Management informed the original writ
      petitioner that the appellant herein - Reshma Sultana has been appointed
      as Urdu Lecturer. The management sought approval for her appointment
      from the second respondent - Commissioner of Collegiate Education.
      The second respondent - Commissioner of Collegiate Education sought
H
 RESHMA SULTANA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                                187
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

management’s explanation as to how the appellant herein could have              A
been appointed without seeking opinion of a subject expert. However, in
January 2010, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education approved the
appointment of the appellant herein.
       2.2 Feeling aggrieved, the original writ petitioner filed the writ
petition before the learned Single Judge. By a detailed judgment and            B
order, the learned Single Judge quashed the appointment of the original
respondent No. 10 – appellant herein and also issued further directions
to the management to forward necessary documents and proposals to
the concerned authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ
petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject.
                                                                                C
      2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the appointment of the
appellant as an Urdu Lecturer and issuing the direction to forward
necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the
purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer
in Urdu subject, the appellant herein preferred the writ appeal before          D
the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division
Bench has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment
and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
       2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the writ appeal and           E
confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge,
quashing the appointment of the appellant herein as an Urdu Lecturer,
the original respondent No. 10 before the learned Single Judge and the
appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court, whose
appointment has been set aside by the learned Single Judge confirmed            F
by the Division Bench of High Court has preferred the present appeal.
      3. While issuing notice on 08.01.2021, this Court passed the
following order:-
                            “XXXXXXXXXX
                                                                                G
       Issue notice limited to the question as to whether the High Court
in a writ petition, after holding the appointment of the petitioner to be not
valid, could have directed for appointment of respondent No.10 who
was neither recommended by the Committee nor approved by the
competent authority for the selection in pursuance of 2007 recruitment,
returnable within six weeks.”                                                   H
188             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A            4. Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the
      consideration of this Court is whether after holding the appointment of
      the appellant to be not valid, the High Court could have thereafter directed
      for appointment of respondent No.10 herein – original writ petitioner,
      who was neither recommended by the Committee nor approved by the
      competent authority for the selection in pursuance of 2007 recruitment.
B
             5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 10
      herein – original writ petitioner has vehemently submitted that he is better
      qualified than the appellant herein. It is submitted that the appellant has
      only passed SLET whereas respondent No.10 – original writ petitioner
      has passed both NET and SLET; the original writ petitioner has also
C     scored 65% marks in regular M.A. It is further submitted that the original
      writ petitioner has twenty-five years of experience in teaching the post-
      graduate students, whereas the appellant has no experience in teaching
      the post-graduate students. Apart from that, the original writ petitioner
      has been awarded Ph.D. in Urdu in February, 2021 by the University of
D     Mumbai. It is the case on behalf of the respondent No.10 herein – original
      writ petitioner that therefore while quashing and setting aside the
      appointment of the appellant herein – the learned Single Judge has rightly
      directed to forward necessary documents and proposals to the concerned
      authorities for the purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a
      full-time Lecturer in Urdu subject.
E
             6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
      parties, we have considered the fact that the learned Single Judge has,
      on appreciation of entire material on record, specifically found that the
      entire selection process was vitiated by fraud and there was a
      manipulation of the record and no resolution, on the basis of which the
F     appellant was appointed was in existence and there was an interpolation.
      Thereafter the learned Single Judge while quashing and setting aside the
      appointment of the appellant, which was vitiated by fraud and manipulation
      etc. could not have further passed an order directing to forward necessary
      documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the purpose of
G     appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer in Urdu
      subject.
            6.1 Once the entire selection process was found to be vitiated
      due to fraud, collusion and manipulation, thereafter the learned Single
      judge ought to have passed the order for a fresh selection after following
H     the due process of selection as required. It is to be noted that the original
 RESHMA SULTANA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                                 189
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

writ petitioner is also seeking appointment pursuant to the very selection       A
process/recruitment process which is found to be fraudulent and suffers
from manipulation of record. Under the circumstances, the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge, which was not interfered with by the
Division Bench directing to forward the documents of the respondent
No.10 herein – original writ petitioner to consider his case for appointment
                                                                                 B
is unsustainable.
       7. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the appointment
of the appellant herein by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the
Division Bench is concerned, apart from the fact that this Court had
issued a limited notice as observed hereinabove, even on merits also and
considering the fact that the entire selection process/recruitment process       C
was found to be fraudulent and it was found that there was a manipulation
in the resolution and as such no resolution was passed to appoint the
appellant, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge committed any
error in quashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant herein.
The same has been righty confirmed by the Division Bench of the High             D
Court.
       8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench and that of the learned Single Judge quashing and
setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Urdu Lecturer is hereby        E
confirmed. However, that part of the direction/order passed by the
learned Single Judge by which the learned Single directed to forward
necessary documents and proposals to the concerned authorities for the
purpose of appointing the original writ petitioner as a full-time Lecturer
in Urdu subject, which is not interfered with by the Division Bench of
the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. A fresh selection process        F
be initiated for filling up the post of Urdu Lecturer after following due
process as required and the same shall be monitored and supervised by
respondent No.2 herein - Commissioner of Collegiate Education and
this exercise be completed preferably within a period of three months
from today.                                                                      G
      With this, the present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                    Appeal partly allowed.   H