I 2 u lit S 'P {& w 1=.. ffl. &0: St!>.3 o 3 E> (fli l't-"3 S:,,5 ° :5- 'Ei, S ;¥o Psl'j' S S E. 'S t3 ;:' <n S a'-£u Si E> 3 ,< s:t g. §1 IB';.,~ M (0 i:-i£&3 ? w ?i o'\;£ ^ ^.1} / ti -..H o o5| ai m D^. O ((» (i) ff.' ss> (ii> !» —•>:;; .? ®s (E> S -'r' "t' ',"? s s? gt Q. "-•5 S w 'S>II ^ ^ HIGH COURT O? CHHATTISGARHs BIIASPUR Hon'ble Sbri Justice FakhEuddl.a; WtIT PETITION H0.847Z2001. Public Service Ccaunission M»P.& Others Q__R__D E __R Per Falchruddin, iT. Tbe. petitioner has flled tbis petition stylini as Putolie Interest I»itlgation« The petitioner has sought relief in para 7 to caamand all the records per'taining to tnarking in the Interview conducted tbe responcient no.l for tbe Civil Services and te quasb tbe result/appraisal made by the respon- dents nos. 1 and 2« It is further prayed tbat respondents be dlrected to further arrange for tlng the interview £or all the successful candidates of the maia exaiaination, wbo were invited for tbe aforesaid interview ander objective and impar'tial parameters fixedby tbe Court in the prssence of experts to be appointed by the Court. It is further prayed in para 4 that the respondent no»4 to coiffiti- t&te Public Service C<»mission for the State of Cbbattisgash. 2) So far as constitutlon of Public Servlce Ccnmission for the State of Ctihattisgarh is con- cerned, Dr.N.K. Sbukla, submlts that Public Service Cairoission has been constituted. 3) The petitioner subnits thet be is M«A« in Sociology and Public Administration and B .Ed» He has beea a teacher and has taken voluntary retire- He is / ft » A » in 1999< Written test and the main exanination Septeinber» to 15'bb 4) In para 3 of tbe petition it is averred that the petition is direeted against the markings (eva- luation) made by tbe respondent no.l and nore parti- cularly at the instance of respondent no«2 for tbe interview of State Civil Services Examination after theeligible candidates as sbown in the petitloa appeared at such l.nterview baving qualified in the written test (Main Exam) primarily on the grca o£ regionalisa, 'new State' or 'other State'. patitioner bas made allegations in para 5.5 that the markings made by the respondent no.2 in bls Chairroanship o£ the candldates daniciled in Chhattis' garb is an act and exercise as if in vsndetta, sub- jectivisim. utter prejudi.ee and delitoerate design. The petitJ.oner annexed sone of the mark sheets belonging to the eandidates stating to be tbat of Chbattisgarh to show the marks (iatained by thein ia the main examination also as Annexure P/5. In para 5»5 the pefcitioner furtber alleged 'fetest the candi~ dates o£ Chhattisgarh have been awarded narks to the extent o£ 20% (50 or'so^out of 250) agaiast tbeir seore in writtea test to tbe extent of more than 50% and even toucbing or crossing 60% in soae cases* It 1s averred that all tbe candidates of so as to 6 » •S' 8 treated step-motherly were never awarded such poor and low and others daniciled in tbe prssent State o£ Madiaya Pradesh and Sdhi^tingly learnt that such candidates have been awarded on an average nuch raore than 100 marks (constltAng 40% to 45% raarks in most o£ the eases therdsy creating an element o£ disfavour to tbe candidates fraai Ctihattisgarb for no fault of theirs. It is statsd that such mination an<3 discrimination actuated due to malice for the candidates from Chhattlsgarh was anwarraatedly exhtbited by tbe Board (group) chaired by the res- pondent no.2. The candidates have infocmed the petitioner that tbey have answered their questio2 rathsr well Jln accordance with their mecit alrea^ displayed i.n no objective, foolproof or unimpeachable parameter available to the said respondents £or convincingly assessing the actual merlt of the candidates if the same is not in approxlmation of the marlts obtained in the preliminary and nain examinations« It is a.l.faged tbat she so-called eva- luation in interview has beea an exercise in polit.ical and other personal vendetta as hereinaftSr explained, The marle-sheets of the caadidates of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh interviewed by the respon- dent no«2 and Annexure-P/6 is the raark-sheet o£ Kum. Anju Pasi has benifit^ed with petitioner at page no.71 and Pravtn Kumar Naseri at page no.7lB| Hews- \paper cutting in Hindi 1s as follows: u- '^ < i<<y,< l tft wr ?ft' tft "ftrf^s TftffT ^ B??ft'w^ ^i ST^frpnff ir w^ i i; g^sfrr qw ftqT ?rf^T qt.'qy^a' ^ gy ^terog V w<i i'<iur y rd^'ffl" 'fw T?I Wtfl'wig % 'f^ sfr y, Fti^^n ^*T ^4^ ^ % '^clrs3 s1^ ^ 25o ^ ^ 60 ^ ^rra' ~^ •fs^ ^f -^f ^i 5®qqg ^, <rti|t<|fj< ^ftniWt' qt'TOrf)''^ "ir«J 3iTB?rr sqar ^T TS 3w ?i Brrfltiflg Pl'l'iti^cl'l yrt'PI ^T ^ g^ W' yr ^s TS(TT gew ^ •f^?r "fWad q~ft§rr^ ar^ sfer inar qi^ y'nflw^ ^ Tnfr^Trf ^Y WTO q?T XT ^ aIiiBT ^T ^1 'C^S t^m St<;(S^ ^ TOT' ^ yTri^l'pifflY ^ BTiTTOT pT, ^-?ffift EWT ^?TT ^t-qTVd? ^ Jcit^<u| ^ W <TS 31'liKI'fl ^ OT^" ST Wtft" & i T^ ^ers? ^ ST^ gt V ^r f^ 52 ^feT 1^ ?l 3PiT ^>l^ f^r ^T 60 ifer ^ ^iffT cfr % -feCEft- ^rgzr st Tirfrt qg ?% m^ ^ aWt ^ff ?t urrfls-ip % d*/1isi;T wr^ y Fd^VP'i^T yr ^&fc^ ^ ^T ES §rr&t "p3r%'>ft <fr 'TPT ^ <fr igT ^t- ac^wn- m?r st^f %t $*<i<°y 'r'iti i, f^$ T?^T %Y yt^ rft^-sw ;teT 'f^s t ?i13*q qg ifl- 70-75 ^ 15^TCT q^f g| 'ftTO^I" 3f ~^s >n^r % IWr ^ieTsg ifr JTRT ^l' iis'?qq'^ stcrr & "psRNt IWas Tftffr ^Pff ^ ^ qtsw Ifrfrc l^rw ^afi 13illT 3^t Brfl-^ aTEnr TT <KT ^r 3ii4<i-f s'rar ti ayf^^rfre- V s^St •fwfd ^rr? Tff ^ -flw tFs fre^ ^ aprrar ^ET^? 3T^ ;feT TKT 'Wft tt HnftiBlg ^ y rd^'P^V % BTU q^t" fl> T^Cfti "ftf'aa q'ffgr 1f ffr ^igdifl'f ?feT erftiw TT 'ftw WR fCTS^ ^ •^ft- gaf-ftT g^ f^) ^S ^WR ^.^i7i g'T Wt "flTTOT" ^ ?^ ^ ^W?- ^ ^TRT 3H yfrftfrpi<i"1r % -rTK a3h- 3Tf ^s^5S ^ 1W ^T rTftiiT -fti? g fSCTyr -fWiR ITiftffT ^ fA ^-ff % srmn TT ^WTT tra arrl ?Tft?r 3®?'^ w wfaT ft>?- qt^wft ^ "rii><Lw 3ii"i*<i'fi (i? uii<!l'>n 1 fNi-Tra^T ^ rtriT ^t'qTTd^ -pTTOT fte'-tfl" ^FE? S::nT cTO yr, 3^ ^ers? ^ ^ST rr "f^ •re^r ^t 1^rr ST §%Tti trsftwi^ ^ arrf^ graT y>T ST^ ??r V ^ 53, T^r wf y'r 45, ^tw <'I^<T rt' 50, ?qTfTf ^r ^T 53, 'ffft tljt>'iiff wt 52 , 5>'hnff 'bd^K yt" 50 ,f3nan" ^agg' ^t 58, Bin- frfti rre ^t crT< (ft X ^ i®si53 ;feT ^t- fE?r ti a^r ^ yfsvWvif «?r1^< Erf3 ^ 15 ^rar u-D'i <^ •f^s tft ??WT ?ft?3R gYqTOT 1 yr ^tft ^T -WaBTftffT ^ ST^I yKl^c;-|< Tgr STT 3f1<Pb«n VT B?t<MH ^T ^T TOTI W a^I yf^rT'ft aw me ift 44 ^ter ft?r •ftrrrar T^ Irf^T ^ ^?r f^rg aftrrft q^ TT ^t ^iare WRT r^Ti -^ 3PTT 3I3W yT 80 :fe7 f^r e^ ?fr qg ^-TOqcl- g^i iio'g^r ifT^-^T 3Tpft7T ^ ^ 2000 ^\ iTfraT 115 T?lf % 1'SW ifr 1 cft?TOft' ^f % ;i?fft ^r ^ t^ ateV i> arrtTR" MTbnftw^ ^ Tfts 70 (TWf %T WR e'^rr wr arri '^PTO sm^' %s gfrf ??r ynpr ^t ®T(TS ^rrftitT ^t' efr i isii-nq'i "TreT t f^ HnftOT^ ^ s'sgT ^i TO (l^l^iii< gr^r ^t wqy^r ^ a^ft y(^^i H^T tft" i am^ra' iTwrr ^T TBT ^ 1^ ^erBg ^i ^m- ^t- g-i^ rt'^t T^f artr ^aa: fer°9 ^T % ^€fS|- m SB S^r w f^rri ^T ^TY ^i y-riflwi^ ^ 4f^T y rd^'n- SRTW aftr pv Si 3-TOT qiSTT t 1^ WTffTFm- ?laT ^ ?fMT s'tgT &r iic'qy^r ^ ?nt yfri^-p^ ^t OTEft-OT^ % y Pd^ Pl^"'lt 9ft QRRT X Sgcf 3T^ ^T 1^r ?l wft- s^lj^- ?ft yfs ^r ??i ^TTr ^t ^f&e- ^t- sn- OTxft- ti iii-qy^r ^ ?wr-^WT y'rd<i'll'in ^l" ^r S 1^1 eo ^ flw ^fer ~p?r ? i % ^ ??fc "-^I'KI ? ??rflire' y I'flu't) wfr ^ 3^?ft" TWt'aT st ^ tl earT yTri^ P[i<<T ^ y^twi^ % geqiNT ^r ??i im?r ^ ^^f ^r ?)T ysye •ftrgrr ti ®Tt f^ ^ ^f^s yf'a^'W urrHw^ e'\^£ift wr°r ^ unar ??!' ^yi<1 If ?i' tbe tstitioner teh.at respondent no.2 was vislbly aanoyed witbia ledge o£ so many aad it is the respondents ttisgarh as outsi<3ers or liabilities for tbe respon- dent no«3 and then asted out the aforesaid treatne asfc wfaich was neither in good faith nor in bonafide exer- cise o£ jurlsdictioa. Individual competition being the crux o£ rating in merit would not allow fche respondent no«2 in particular to thwart tbe prcspeete o£ all the unereployed candidates of th®new State ctf Chhattisgeiyh in a blatant, stubborn and unethical exercise in the Isainediscretion. The rights, inmiu- nities, prlvilegcs and jurjs diction conferred on tlte respondent no.2 as Cbairman of the M.P.p.s.C., requires a standard degree of behaviour which is totally wanting in the facts and circunistanees of the case, contended 6) In para 5»10 it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief for any specif.S.c candidate yet had Sbweta Shrivastava scored even 60 marks out of 250, she would have in all prctoability been selected for ths post of Deputy Collsctor wbere- as dae to getting only a pstlt.cy 52 marks at the interview she has been selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police In para 5.11 counse for petitioner stated that tbe functionar.les like tbe respondent no.2 and the M.P.P.S.c. appointed In accordance witb the provlsions of the Constitution are no-t expected or capable of discbarging fcheir cfcligations in an unconstit'-itlonal manner as has been done in the inefeant case, The respondents have ratber misused the constitutional privilsge and discretion in choosing to eliminate the candi- dates from Cbbattisgarh State under a mista'ke notion of immunity from legal action wbereas the petition has catalogued tbe injustice done to the people a£ Cbhattisgarh at large capable of being cused through inyoking the jurisdiction o£ tbis Court» 7) The petJLtion is op^osed tay tbe respondent/ State M.P.P.S.C,, So far as Chbattisgarb State is concerned, Dr.N.K. Shukla subnitted that the State of Ghhattisgarh has constituted its own coimiission which has started functioning. So far as legal \n»- question regarding mainta^ility of the petition and otber aspects are concerned, he snbmits that public interest litigation has to be filed in accorOanee with tbe prlnciples laid down and not for rewAng enquiry and to settle personal score. •• / o • 8) Wbile Public Service Cacamission for the Onion and for the State is donstituted under Article 315 o£ the Const.itution o£ India, Article 316 governs the appoint- ment and tern of office of menfc)ers» Article 317 governs- Removal and susoension of a member of a Public Service Drovifled that- ject to the pr&vislons of clause (3), the Chairman or any other member of a Public Service Commission sball only tee removed from his office by order of tbe President on tbe ground of misbehavio'jr after tbe Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the Presidenfe has, on inquiry beld in accordap'-'^ „«..„ the procedure prescribed in thatb'»ha1-i: unde^. ^ ^ 145, reported tbat the Ct^^^ ^ swh other member. £s tb? case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed. 9) The Public Service Coraraission for the Union as well as that of State is established under Constitutior The Chairrean and tbe meAags hold constitutional posts« A petition or PIL cballenging any action taken by them has feo be filed with care and responsibility. Tbe petitioner sbould not normally rush to the Court raerely by reading newspaper beeause heayy responsibility lies on the person wbo files PILo The petitioner has no personal knowledge about iaA'^csaisws. He has not sbown tbat any person appeared in tte examination had apprcalied i, nor furnished a^ details of the eaquiry made by 'as to how they bave been treated step-motherly. All naaner< The petitioner states tbat •fctereugh friends he and for what the enquia^ was nade, no detai.ls of eKiairy ^ has been furnlshed. The candidates who appeared in the examination have not stated so. During hearing we pointedly questioned and on 13/7/2001 even it vss indicated in the order sheet, but no substantlal allegations of malaflde and partlallty came to be fur.nished and eyen the affidavit filed by some candidates do not raafce any allegatlon regarding discrimination or step-motherly treatment with them by Chairman of the Board. 10) No material has been placed except some paper piiblicetion which said to be made in Newspaper by its writer. The petitloner has not at all placed any cogent material. The allegations which have been made In the petition have no basis. No details about the person interviewed and dlscriminated have come with relevant material inspite of opportunlty given to the petitioner. On petitioner's own showing the process of recruitraent started when the Chhattisgarh State was not formed. Affer formation of Chhattisgarh State the interviews were cohducted between 21/3/200l to 30/3/2001 whereafter petition has been flled on 9/5/2001. 11) It is polnted out by the respondent Ho. 3 that out of 1,58,463 caadidates, 1,53,392 candidates were summoned for predininary examination and thereafter 96,757 candidates appeared in the main examination and out o£ that 288 candidates were called for i.nterview. The selection was made for 94 candidates. Neither any petition was filed nor any grievance was made against the selection so made by any indivldual. Even the news oublished in DainDt Bhaskdr, the reporter \a»f\'uw in the end haiA'-wiestefi that it is reported that certain candidates are contsmplating ^o moye High Court of Chbattlsgarh but none of the candidates flled any j-ndividual petition, E ~~ -9- 12 ) An applj.cation for intervention on behalf of Tuteja Coaching Instj.tute has been filed. This iastxtute clains to have admitted the s tudents for coaching after obta.i.ni.ng fees. The Coacbing Institute also did not f.1.1e any petitlon on behalf o£ Its students. None of the candidates of Institute has filed any pet.i.tion. No relief has been clalmed in favour of JLnstitutl.on. They are running the Institute in coimaercial way. Sven persons whose photographs/forms have beea annexed, consent has not at all been filed and allegations made against them even. 13) There is another intervention applicatioa on behalf of Arvind Khaka and Kum. Sllpa Deshmuich. Their relief is that they be allowed to agitate the rlghts as also assertion oi£ such rights to the intervenors and other candidates from Chhattisgarh. Kuni. SJ.lpa Deshmukh In her affldavit stated that low marks have been awarded to her. She has not stated that she had appeared in Mr. Dubey*s Board. Mr. Arvind Khaka ia his affldavlt stated that he got low raarks. He has also not stated that he had appeared in the same Board. None of these aersous in his affidavit has made wild and vexatious allegations as have made by petitioner against Cha.irman of the Board. 14) e have referred to tbe applications of Intervenors along with the pefcition. The Intervenors have not made any allegations against resoondent no. 2 and against other merabers of Pliblic Sei-vice Conimission. In fact, the statements which have been made are very casual and'without there being any basis to condemn the coastitutional functionaries -i.a whi.ch manner it has been done. The Public Servj.ee Commission has filed the rBturn. They have also flled the docuinents. It has shown the marks obtaiaed by each candidate in R.3. 10 - It is pointed out that out of 94 posts. 27- persons have been selected from Chhattisgarh. The Board consists of Chairman, experts on the subject and members of P.S.C. It is not a single man's decision. It is the collective wlsdon of the members. None of the members has been Jolned. We have absolutely not found any material against Chairman nor against any meniber o£ the Board and experts. The petitloner before filing the petition did not serve any notice. It appears that the petitioner read the newspaper and on the basis of the same rushed to the High Court without even verifica- tion of the allegations published. SQ £ar as each individual, who has appeared, is capable of protecting its own Interest, it is not the case of the oetitioner that the persons, who appeared In the examination, are not capable to agitate their grievance. No grievance has been raised regarding prelimlnary exarainatlon conducted out of thousands of candidates. None.;of the said persons has come-SorwardBd to file the petitlon. It is pointed out that so far as written test and intervlews are concerned, the selection JLs dependent on various factors like the preference of the posts, i.e. Dy. Collector. Dy. S.p., Mahila Bal Vikas Adhikari and Sub-Registrar. Various options are to be glven, If aperson does not come in the first category and secures low marks, he would be given a job of Dy, S.P. and not that of Dy. Collector. These facts are wlthin the knowledge of each eandidate. The petitioner did not verify about prefereace givea by candidates. The public Interest, therefore, reqaires that where each individual has his own preference and interest, they can be agitated by the individuals themselves as it is within their own knowledge and not by way of public interest litigation and that too by such vague II - and geaeral petition casually filed without containing relevant material and against all princlples of pleadings. The petition contains repeated mud-sllnging and wild and vexatious allegations against Chairman who by virtue of the Provisions of State Re-Organisatlon •^ct, on the appointed day became Chairman of State Commission for.both States and remained as such till the-Chhattisgarh Service Commlssion was separately constituted. So far as intervenors are concerned, one way or the other, It appears that these persons have for publicity or otherwise just filed applications witbout carefully examining and studying. Taking Into coasideration the totality of the circurastances and naterial which have been placed on record, the public interest and confidence. in the iastitution is sought to be damaged, by sucb petition and interventionfc appllcation as filed rather than its advanceraent. 15) Shri Prashant Mlshra & Shri P. Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors opposing the petition submit that these persons who have been selected and placed material on record to show that pesrsons have been selected from Chhattisgarh and persons who appeared in interview conducted by the Board chaired by Shri Dubey have been selected. Shri Prashant Mishra further points out that the mark-sheets filed by the petitioner along with the petition is . without obtaining perraission/consent. The petitioner or some one has inserved various things in mark-sheets. The affidavit filed by the petltioner is aot in accordance with law. He referred pages 58 & 60 , ths mark-sheets relate to the candidates who aaoeared in Garhaji's Board. All these things have been done by the petitioaer. The petitioa has been filed along with > cryptic and very vague affidavit and no material -.LJ— -12- particulars have been stated in the sffidavit In support o£ the petition. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, there is no material against him in the entire oetii-ion. he petitloaer ought to know the consequences of making allegations against the constltutioaal functionartes. 17) Having thus considered the matter and examined, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs of the order, we are of the Gonsidered oplnion that the petitioner has made vexatious and scanduloug allegations wlthout any basis and foundation. No material has been placed to sybstantiate the wild allegatj.ons. It has damaged the institution. inspite of various opDortunities glven no material has been placed. Learned counsel for the petitioaer failed to point out any material and has not been able to substantiate even prima facie the allegatiCTns 1 He repeatedly made one submission that each and every case o£ the Board chaired by SJnri Dubey be re-examined and this Court should do this exercise In public interest. He submitted that he will be able to arque and demonstrate if eatire record is olaced before Court and he is shoifq. 18) We heard this matter practically v'hole day and having given our thoughful consideration, we do not find any merlt in the coatention. It is devoid of substance. The petition has no substances and petitioner has failed to place or point out anything by which it can be said that the Chairman or members of Selection Board have acted in the manner as allegd.l.fciy petltioner. 19) So far as applications for intervension supporting the petition ^re concerned. they are dismissed. The petitioa also fails and is dismissed. 2.0) Learned counsel for the respondents as well as —13- appearing in apposi-tsaon to the writ petition submitted that ihethe petition allegations have been made against Chairman without any basiso He prays that heavy cost be imposed as the petition damages the Selection Board as well as the entire institution. He left the cost to the df-scretj.on of the Court« Having considered the facts and circumstances of the KBBfe case. exanplary cost of Rs. 10000/- is imposed on petitioner payable to respondent No. 2 and 3. 21. Learned counsel submits that certaln coaching institutions like the present oae Tuteja Coaching Institute are doing on commercial 1s undertaking and students are allured. It is subraitted that the Tut;sja Institute has submitted Certain document against the interest of candidates. In some casesphotographs haye also been appended. The institute has to be very Careful. We do not wish to dealmuch on this aspect of the matter. It is noted that many coaching instutitesare coaching in an<3 outside tbe State. Even in respect ..o£ Prlmary, Nursery and Higher Secondary Schools and colleges, permission is required. They are gaverned by statufees, rules & regulatlons and bye-laws formed by respective States and Central Governments. Bven private schbols and colleges are goveraed and standsrd an<3 qualifications are prescribed. It over persons appears that there is no check/carrying on Coaching instltutions. The competition 1s increas&ng day by day Many of the students and candidates are allured by advertlsenent or otherisise and huge profit earned. It has become commertisl activity without any check from any quarter. The Oovernments both Central and State will be well advised to consider all these aspects appropriate legislation, rules and regulations and guidellnes regarding qualification of teachers or -14- coaches, availability of accpmmodatlon , hostel facilities etc. be laid doya and for that purpose thorough investigation be made. Coaching clasees, if required. nay be conducted by the Sovernment, Uni.versiti.es, colleges and Institutions recognised for the purpose s so that the candidates deslrous of appearing in the canpetitive examinations may well be benefited and are not exploited by any one. 22. Consequently, as discussed above, the petition fails and is'dismissed wJLth exemplary cost of Bs. 10000/- en^pBftstioner payable to tbe respondetobs No. 2 and 3o 23 Counsel fee as per scale. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge