2018 (7) TMI 2264 - SCH - Indian Laws

Seeking benefit of certain answers for which marks had not been awarded which was found out in the process of RTI application - HELD THAT - When the matter came up before this Court the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh are directed to ascertain whether there is any vacancy in the post of Commercial Tax Inspector available as on today. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It is pointed out that subsequent selections have been conducted and in case the appellant is appointed at this juncture it would have serious repercussions on the seniority of the officers already appointed. It is only in the interest of justice and for doing complete justice between the parties that the appellant is appointed in one of the available posts of Commercial Tax Inspector without treating this as a precedent. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of certain answers not awarded in a competitive examination.
2. Consequential benefits on appointment and seniority granted by Single Judge.
3. Challenge by State Public Service Commission before Division Bench.
4. Division Bench remitting the matter to Single Judge for relief.
5. Jurisdiction of Division Bench in an intra court appeal.
6. Consideration of appeal on merits by Division Bench.
7. Appointment of appellant as Commercial Tax Inspector.
8. Seniority entitlement of the appellant.
9. Disposal of pending applications.
10. Costs.

Analysis:
The appellant participated in a competitive examination in 2010 and sought benefit for answers not awarded, discovered through an RTI application. The Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh granted consequential benefits on appointment and seniority, a decision challenged by the State Public Service Commission before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, while agreeing in principle with the process, was dissatisfied with the relief granted by the Single Judge and remitted the matter back to the Single Judge for reconsideration of the relief. The Supreme Court expressed reservations on the Division Bench's authority to remit a writ petition regarding relief molding, emphasizing that the Single Judge and Division Bench exercise the same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench's role in an intra court appeal is primarily to assess the correctness of the Single Judge's judgment rather than remitting the matter back to the Single Judge.

Upon review, the Supreme Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to confirm the availability of vacancies for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. The State highlighted potential issues with the appellant's appointment affecting the seniority of existing officers and deferred the decision to the State Public Service Commission regarding the appellant's potential success if awarded the benefit of marks. In the interest of justice, the Supreme Court ordered the appellant's appointment as a Commercial Tax Inspector without setting a precedent, clarifying that seniority would commence from a specific date to avoid future disputes. The appointment was mandated within four weeks; failure to comply would result in the appellant being deemed appointed from a later date.

The appeals were disposed of, pending applications were resolved, and no costs were awarded in the judgment. The detailed analysis addressed the issues of benefit entitlement, relief molding by the Single Judge, jurisdiction of the Division Bench, appointment as Commercial Tax Inspector, seniority entitlement, and the overall disposal of the case without costs.