2022 (8) TMI 1447 - SC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of appointments - result of the main examination dated 21 st April 2020 of the 6 th Combined Civil Services Examination 2016 - minimum marks for qualification - HELD THAT - The main examination is comprising of 6 papers total marks would be 1050 and candidate has to appear in all the papers of the main examination. This could be one construction that qualifying marks in paper-I is 30% but in other subject papers it may be 40% or as fixed for the respective category and whether it has to be aggregate or qualifying marks in each paper is indeed not clear and ambiguity is there in the conditions of advertisement of which a detailed reference has been made. At this stage we take assistance of Rule 16 of the scheme of Rules 1951 read with the proviso which gives a different indication. This Court in N. SURESH NATHAN VERSUS U.O.I. 1991 (11) TMI 257 - SUPREME COURT while examining the recruitment rules for Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department and taking into consideration the procedure which has been followed by the department for sufficiently long time observed that the construction of the scheme of rules which is in consonance with long standing practice prevailing in the concerned department is untenable to require upsetting it and if the past practice is based on one of the possible constructions which can be made of the rules upsetting the same could not be appropriate. In the instant case the view which has been adopted by the Commission and that has been considered and held by the High Court in the impugned judgment may be better circumscribed but both are equally possible views and either of the one could not be ruled out or outrightly negated. In the given situation when one possible view has been acted upon by the Commission and pursuant to which the recommendations were made and after approval of the State Government candidates have been appointed and are working for almost 2 years by this time it will be unjust for this Court to now permit the Government to take a U-Turn in compliance of the impugned judgment and nonsuit the candidates who are working for sufficiently long time. It is well known that punctuation marks by themselves do not control the meaning of the statute when its meaning is otherwise obvious. The ordinary rule is that punctuation mark is a minor element in the interpretation of statute more so when it is a case of subordinate legislation. On going through the scheme of the Rules 1951 proviso to Rule 16 has to be read in conjunction to both Clause (a) and (b) and not to clause (b) in particular as being observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 23 rd February 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the marks obtained in Paper-I of the main examination were to be added to the total marks.
2. Whether the merit list prepared by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) based on 'aggregate qualifying marks' of all subjects or 'minimum qualifying marks' in each subject is correct.
3. Whether the stand taken by the JPSC and the State before the Court in the case of Joy Guria vs. State of Jharkhand is correct.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the marks obtained in Paper-I were to be added to the total marks.
The High Court determined that the marks obtained in Paper-I (General Hindi/General English) of the main examination were not to be added to the total marks while preparing the merit list for the declaration of the candidature. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of Clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement read with Rule 16 of the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 (Rules 1951). The Supreme Court, however, found ambiguity in the advertisement, particularly in Clause 12(b), which could be interpreted in multiple ways. The Court noted that the Commission's interpretation, which included the marks of Paper-I in the total marks, was a plausible view and should not have been interfered with by the High Court.

Issue 2: Whether the merit list prepared by the JPSC based on 'aggregate qualifying marks' of all subjects or 'minimum qualifying marks' in each subject is correct.
The High Court held that the correct interpretation was that candidates must secure 'minimum qualifying marks' in each subject of the main examination. This decision was influenced by the judgment in Joy Guria vs. State of Jharkhand, which dealt with the preliminary examination. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's interpretation was one of the possible views but noted that the Commission's interpretation, which considered aggregate qualifying marks, was also a reasonable construction. The Supreme Court emphasized that upsetting a long-standing practice based on a plausible interpretation was inappropriate.

Issue 3: Whether the stand taken by the JPSC and the State before the Court in the case of Joy Guria vs. State of Jharkhand is correct.
The High Court affirmed the stand taken by the JPSC and the State in the Joy Guria case, which required candidates to secure qualifying marks in each paper of the preliminary examination. The Supreme Court, however, distinguished the Joy Guria case, which pertained to the preliminary examination, from the main examination. The Court concluded that the interpretation of the main examination rules should be independent of the preliminary examination rules and based on the scheme of Rules 1951 read with Clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, reinstating the merit list prepared by the JPSC, which included the marks of Paper-I in the total marks. The Court acknowledged the ambiguity in the advertisement and held that the Commission's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with long-standing practice. The Court emphasized that the candidates who had been working for nearly two years should not be penalized due to the differing interpretations of the rules. The decision was confined to the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, with future selections to be governed by the newly notified Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021.