- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ishwar Singh v. Ajay Kumar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Ishwar Singh and 14 others were selected and appointed as Inspectors of Industries/Managers Industrial Estate for Small-Scale Cottage and Village Industries, Haryana. Two unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection before the High Court, primarily alleging that the interviews were a “sham affair.” It was asserted that interviews were conducted from February 11 to February 18, 1992, with 350 candidates interviewed per day, implying an average interview duration of about one minute and 20 seconds per candidate. Ex-servicemen also challenged the selection alleging that dependants of ex-servicemen were selected in preference to ex-servicemen.
The High Court quashed the selection and appointments, holding that the interviews were neither fair nor proper and therefore vitiated the selection. The present matters reached the Supreme Court by special leave petitions/appeals against the High Court’s judgment dated December 8, 1992. The Supreme Court condoned delay and granted special leave in both matters.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the entire selection and appointments without impleading and hearing the selected candidates (particularly when they had already been appointed).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that it was not disputed by counsel that, except for Ishwar Singh, none of the selected candidates was impleaded before the High Court, and thus the selection and appointments were quashed “entirely at their back.” The Court further recorded that even Ishwar Singh (though a party) had not been served and consequently was not heard by the High Court.
On this basis, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in hearing and deciding the writ petition in the absence of the selected candidates, especially given that the candidates had already been appointed. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter for a fresh decision after notice to the parties.
Holding and Implications
JUDGMENT SET ASIDE AND MATTER REMANDED: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment dated December 8, 1992 and sent the case back for a fresh decision after notice to the parties; the appeals were allowed and no costs were awarded.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the High Court’s quashing of the selection/appointments does not stand, and the dispute must be reconsidered after ensuring that the selected candidates are notified and given an opportunity to be heard. The opinion does not indicate any broader doctrinal implications or the laying down of new legal precedent beyond this remand direction.
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. Special leave granted in both the matters.
3. Ishwar Singh and 14 others were selected and appointed as Inspectors of Industries/Managers Industrial Estate for Small-Scale Cottage and Village Industries, Haryana. The selection and the consequent appointments were challenged by two unsuccessful candidates before the High Court primarily on the ground that the interviews held for the said selection were a sham affair. It was contended before the High Court that the interviews were held from February 11 to February 18, 1992 and 350 candidates were interviewed on each date which meant that on average one minute and 20 seconds was the time taken for the interview of each candidate. The Ex-servicemen also challenged the selection on the ground that the dependants of Ex-servicemen were selected in preference to the Ex-servicemen. The High Court quashed the selection and the appointments on the finding that the interviews held were neither fair nor proper thereby vitiating the selection. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court.
4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that except Ishwar Singh, no other selected candidate was impleaded before the High Court. The selection and the appointments have been quashed entirely at their back. It is further stated that even Ishwar Singh, one of the selected candidates, who was a party, had not been served and as such was not heard by the High Court. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in hearing the writ petition in the absence of the selected candidates especially when they had already been appointed. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court dated December 8, 1992 and send the case back for fresh decision after notice to the parties. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs.
Alert