Supreme Court of India
TEJINDER KAUR & ORS.versusLADY CONSTABLE RAJ KUMARI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1243
- Decided
- 5 November 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The selection of the successful candidates cannot be set aside as they had already obtained the benefits of training, while the unsuccessful candidate’s appeal is dismissed because she did not make the grade.
Summary
Raj Kumari, a lady constable, failed to make the grade in a written test for a Lower School Training Course, while several other candidates were declared successful. She sought re‑evaluation of her answer script and, after the High Court ordered a re‑assessment, her marks remained unchanged. She then filed a second writ petition seeking to quash the selection of the successful candidates on the ground that their marks were reduced on re‑assessment and to be allowed to take the course herself. The High Court quashed the selection of those candidates but dismissed her request for training. The Supreme Court held that the successful candidates, having completed two years of training and subsequent promotions, could not have their selection set aside, and that Raj Kumari, having not made the grade, was not entitled to the training; consequently the appeals were disposed of, allowing the appellants and dismissing the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether the reduction in marks of successful candidates on re‑assessment warrants setting aside their selection.
- Whether a candidate who did not make the required grade can be selected for the training course.
- Whether the High Court erred in quashing the selection of the successful candidates.
- Whether the re‑assessment board’s constitution affects the validity of the re‑assessment.
Subjects
Service LawSelectionRe‑evaluationTraining CoursePromotionPoliceWrit PetitionAdministrative Law
Judgment
,-
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 488
A TEJINDER KAUR & ORS.
v.
LADY CONSTABLE RAJ KUMAR I & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6479 of 2008 etc.)
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
-l.,
Service Law - Selection for training for the sake of
c promotion - Written test - Candidate declared unsuccessful
filing writ petition seeking of revaluation of her answer scripts
as well as of some of the. successful candidates - Revaluation
permitted - Despite revaluation no change in result - Another
writ petition by the candidate seeking quashing of selection
D of few candidates on the ground that on revaluation they got
lesser marks than her or to permit her to take the course - 'f
High Court not permitting the candidate to take the course
and quashing the selection of the few successful candidates '
- On appeal held: In the facts of the case, selection of the
E candidates cannot be set aside - The unsuccessful candidate
does not deserve to be selected as she did not make the
grade.
Respondent No.1 in C.A. No. 6479 of 2008 'R'-a lady
constable, alongwith the appellants took B-_1 test
F . examination for the purpose of being sent to Lower
School Training Course. The appellants were shown
successful in the examination, while 'R' was informed that
she had not made the grade. 'R' unsuccessfully sought
revaluation of her answer script from the authorities. She
G filed a writ petition, which was disposed of by High Court
directing revaluation of answer scripts of 'R' as well as
of the appellants. It also directed that on reassessment if ·-{
'R' was found meritorious, she should be given
opportunity to undergo training course.
H 488
TEJINDER KAUR & ORS. v. LADY COSNTABLE RAJ 489
KUMAR! & ORS.
As per the order of. High Court, revaluation was done, A
but the results did not change. 'R' served notice for
ascertaining her status as well as that of the appellants.
She was informed that her marks remained same after
revaluation and she did not fall in merit.
B
'R' filed writ petition for quashing the selection of
appellants on the ground that on revaluation, marks of
)- the appellants had been reduced and some of the
appellants thus got lower marks than her. In the
alternative she sought permission to take the course.
High Court dismissed the prayer of 'R' for being sent for
c
training holding that she had not made the grade.
However, the Court quashed the selection of the
appellants. Hence C.A.Nos. 6479 and 6480 of 2008 by the
appellants and respondent 'R' respectively.
D
y
Appellants also filed writ petition challenging the
;.
reassessment on the ground that it was done by a Board
which was not duly constituted. High Court declined to
interfere with the same Hence C.A. No. 6481 of 2008.
E
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The guidelines provide for request by the
candidate for re-assessing of his/her marks and there is
no scope .for asking for re-assessment in the case of
other candidates. But in view of the fact that the F
appellants had completed 2 % years of training and in the
meantime they had appeared in List 8, C and List D, that
part of the order of the High Court is set aside by which
their selection was set aside. It would be inequitable to
deprive the appellants the benefits of what had been G
extended to them. Deficiency, if any, in not allotting
proper marks as done by the authorities cannot deprive
them of the benefit which they have obtained. It is not
shown that they were a party to the wrong allotment of
marks at the original stage. The position may have been H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
_,
A different if that was so. [Paras 6 and 7) 1493-G, H; 494-A, B]
1.2 Since respondent No. 1-candidate has not made
the grade, her appeal deserves to be dismissed. There is
no substance in the plea that some of the appellants in
B the other appeal had secured lesser marks than her.
Because of the circumstances of the case, the analogy
cannot be extended to her. [Para 7] [494-C]
~
2. C.A.No.6481/2008 wherein the appellants have
.
'
1
c questioned the impropriety in the process of re-
assessment done, is not required to be dealt with in view
of the order passed in CA No. 6479 of 2008. [Paras 9 and
10] (494-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
D
6479 of 2008. y
~
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2005 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
4256 of 2005.
E
WITH
C.A. Nos. 6480 and 6481 of 2008.
Gaurav Dhingra, Priyanka S. Mathur, Vishal Malik, M.C.
F Dhingra, S. Janani, Ajay Pal and KuJdip Singh for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted
G
SLP (C) NO. 25067 of 2005 and SLP (C) No. 6173 of
-{
2006
2. These two appeals are inter linked and are therefore
H disposed of by the common judgment. Challenge in each case
TEJINDER KAUR & ORS. v. LADY COSNTABLE RAJ 491
KUMARI & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and A
Haryana High Court allowing in- part the writ petition filed by
Raj Kumari, the respondent No.1 in appeal relating to SLP(C )
No. 25067 of 2005 and the appellant in the appeal relating to
SLP (C ) No. 6173 of 2006.
B
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Raj Kumari filed a writ petition inter alia contending that !
she had joined the Punjab Police Force as Lady Constable.
During the course of service she became eligible to take 81 '
test examination which was held on 15.3.2002 for the purpose I C
of being sent to Lower School Training Course. Alongwith her,
the appellants in appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 25067 of 2005
also appeared. When the results were declared, the aforesaid
appellants were shown as successful and Raj Kumari was
informed that she had not made the grade. She was of the view D
that a lot of burgling had taken place in the examination hall and
favour was shown to some persons to make the grade. She
submitted a written request to the Senior Superintendent of ,
Police, Hoshiarpur for re-checking of her papers but the
request was not granted. She again made a similar request , E
vide written communication dated 3.4.2002 to the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, (in short the 'DIG') Jalandhar. The
same was also rejected. She filed a writ petition bearing CWP
No. 7687 of 2002. The State was directed to produce the
answer script of the Raj Kumari and the appellants in appeal F
relating to SLP(C) No. 25067 of 2005. Upon perusal of the
answer scripts, the Division Bench felt that they need to be re-
assessed. Accordingly notice was issued to the appellants in '
appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 25067 of 2005 who were
respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in the writ petition. A committee was 'G
constituted to re-assess the answer sheets. However, the
answer sheets of only the writ petitioners and respondents Nos. '
6 to 1O were re-assessed and there was no re-assessment in
respect of rest of the successful candidates. Upon re-
assessment the marks obtained by Raj Kumari, the writ
'H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A petitioner and the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 were as follows: ~
Candidate Marks before Marks after
reassessment reassessment
B Appellant 47 47
Rajkumari
·Respondent No. 6 53 44
Respondent No. 7 50 46.
c
Respondent No. 8 50 40
Respondent No. 9 50 45
D Respondent No. 10 50 48
The High Court noticed that upon re-assessment, the
respondents 6 to 10 were given lesser marks than what they
obtained prior to re-assessment. The writ petition was
E disposed of accordingly. The writ petitioner served a notice for
ascertaining her status as well as the status of respondent Nos.
6 to 10. A communication dated 28.10.2004 was received by
the writ petitioner from the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Hoshiarpur that her status qua the marks remain the same. The
F writ petitioner took the stand that her answer script has not been
properly checked and on re-assessment respondent nos. 6 to
10 has not received the minimum grade of marks and,
therefore, their selections were to be set aside.
The High Court directed the respondents to produce the
G original records relating to the process of selection and the
actual selection. Written statements were filed. It was pointed
out that the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 had already been sent for
training. They had completed the training and as a result of re-
H valuation after 2'!12 years the whole thing cannot be undone as
TEJINDER KAUR & ORS. v. LADY COSNTABLE RAJ 493
KUMAR! & ORS: [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
)..-
that would cause loss to the State exchequer. The High Court, A
however, felt that though they have sent for the course for 2%
years earlier that would not confer any equity on them, It was
however held that since writ petitioner had not made the grade,
the writ petition was to be dismissed, so far as her prayer for
being sent to training for the Lower School course is concerned. B
The selection of respondents 2 to 6 in the writ petition was sef
aside and it was held that they shall not be entitled to any
)·
J benefit of having completed their course.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellants who were respondent Nos. 6 to 10 submitted that
c
the procedural guidelines did not permit a candidate to seek
re-evaluation of another candidate's answer script. It was
restricted to her papers alone, and therefore, by the impugne~
judgment, the High Court should not have set aside thei'r
,,. selection and that too after they had completed the course of D
~ 2 % years earlier. It is pointed out that in the meantime they have
gone from List B to List C and also undergone training for the
post of ASI in List D. That being the situation the High Court's
judgment is indefensible. It is also submitted that the appellant
Raj Kumari cannot claim any benefit because she had not E
made the grade.
5. Learned counsel for Raj Kumari on the other hand
submitted that assessments done in her case were not proper.
--"(
With reference to the copies of the answer script she submitted F
that marks which ought to have been allotted had not been
allotted.
6. We find that the guidelines really provide for request by
1
the candidate for re-assessing of his/her marks and there is
no scope for· asking for re-assessment in the case of ot~er G
candidates. But in view of the earlier order of the High Court
that question has become academic. It is to be noted that the
respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in the writ petition had completed 2
'Y2 years of training. In the meantime they had appeared in Ust
B, C and List D. H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A 7. In view of the aforesaid peculiar situation we set aside
that part of the order of the High Court by which their selection
was set aside. It would be inequitable to deprive them the
benefits of what had been extended to them. Deficiency, if any,
in not allotting proper marks as done by the authorities cannot
B deprive them of the benefit which they have obtained. It is not
shown that they were a party to the wrong allotment of marks
at the original stage. The position may have been different if
that was so. That being so, their appeal is allowed. But the
appellant Raj Kumari has not made the grade. Therefore, her
c appeal deserves to be dismissed, which we direct. There is
no substance in the plea that some of the appellants in the
other appeal had secured lesser marks than her. But because
of the circumstances highlighted above, we feel that the
analogy cannot be extended to her. The appeals are
accordingly disposed of.
0
SLP(C ) No. 2512 OF 2007
1. Leave granted.
E 2. In this present case the appellants have questioned
correctness of the order passed by the High Court declining to
consider their prayer about the impropriety in the process of
re-assessment done. It was their case that they came to know
from the return filed by the State government that the re-
assessment was done by the Board which was not properly
F constituted. It is, therefore, thefr case that re-assessment as
done has no legal sanction. The High Court declined to interfere
as the connected matters were pending before this Court.
3. In view of the orders passed in appe:_al relating to
G SLP(C) No. 25067 of 2005, there is no necessity for dealing
with the stand taken by the appellants.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Service Law"Sign in to search