LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate is entitled to appointment after re-evaluation of marks in a state service examination.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission & Anr.
Judgment Date: July 31, 2018
Date of the Judgment: July 31, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 675
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
Can a High Court Division Bench remit a writ petition back to a Single Judge for re-evaluation of relief? The Supreme Court addressed this question while considering a case where a candidate was initially denied appointment despite scoring high marks in a state service exam. The Court ultimately directed the appointment of the candidate, emphasizing the need for complete justice. This judgment clarifies the scope of intra-court appeals in writ proceedings and underscores the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring equitable outcomes in service matters. The bench comprised of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.
Case Background
The appellant, Roma Sonkar, participated in the competitive examination for state services in 2010. After the results were declared, he filed a Right to Information (RTI) application and discovered that certain answers for which he had not been awarded marks should have been evaluated. He then approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking the benefit of these marks.
A Single Judge of the High Court, in a judgment dated March 28, 2016, ruled in favor of the appellant, granting him consequential benefits, including appointment and seniority. This decision was challenged by the Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 1) before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench, while agreeing with the process of re-evaluation, was not satisfied with the relief granted by the Single Judge. Instead of deciding the matter on merits, the Division Bench remitted the case back to the Single Judge for a re-evaluation of the relief.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010 | Appellant appeared for the competitive examination for State services. |
| Unknown | Appellant filed an RTI application and found that certain answers were not evaluated. |
| 28.03.2016 | Single Judge of the High Court granted consequential benefits to the appellant, including appointment and seniority. |
| Unknown | Respondent No. 1 challenged the Single Judge’s order before a Division Bench of the High Court. |
| Unknown | Division Bench remitted the matter back to the Single Judge for re-evaluation of relief. |
| 31.07.2018 | Supreme Court directed the appointment of the appellant. |
| 01.08.2018 | Appellant’s seniority to be counted from this date. |
| 01.09.2018 | Appellant to be deemed appointed if the appointment order is not issued by this date. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh after discovering through an RTI application that some of his answers were not evaluated in the competitive examination. The Single Judge ruled in favor of the appellant, granting him appointment and seniority. The State Public Service Commission appealed this decision to a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench, while agreeing with the process of re-evaluation, remitted the matter back to the Single Judge to re-evaluate the relief. The Supreme Court noted that this was an intra-court appeal and the Division Bench should have decided the matter on merits instead of remitting it back to the Single Judge.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The Supreme Court highlighted that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench exercise the same jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court emphasized that an intra-court appeal is primarily to review the correctness of the Single Judge’s decision, not to remit the matter for re-evaluation of relief.
Arguments
The arguments were not explicitly detailed in the judgment, however, the following points can be inferred:
-
Appellant’s Argument:
✓ The appellant argued that he was entitled to appointment and seniority based on the re-evaluated marks.
✓ He contended that the Single Judge’s order was correct and should be upheld. -
Respondent’s Argument:
✓ The State Public Service Commission argued that subsequent selections had been conducted, and appointing the appellant at this stage would affect the seniority of already appointed officers.
✓ They also stated that it was for the Commission to determine if the appellant would have been selected if the marks had been awarded initially.
The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/State Public Service Commission submitted that had the appellant been given the benefit of the marks, he would have been successful.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Entitlement |
|
| Respondent’s Objections |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but the main issue can be inferred as:
- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in remitting the matter back to the Single Judge for re-evaluation of relief instead of deciding the matter on merits.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt With It |
|---|---|
| Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in remitting the matter back to the Single Judge for re-evaluation of relief instead of deciding the matter on merits. | The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench should have decided the appeal on merits by considering the correctness of the Single Judge’s judgment instead of remitting the matter. The Court emphasized that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench exercise the same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. |
Authorities
No cases or books were specifically cited by the court in this judgment.
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Article 226 of the Constitution of India | Supreme Court of India | The court discussed the scope of jurisdiction under this article. |
Judgment
| Submission | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim for appointment based on re-evaluated marks. | The Court accepted the submission and directed the appointment of the appellant. |
| Respondent’s argument about impact on seniority. | The Court addressed this by clarifying that the appellant would be entitled to seniority only from 01.08.2018. |
| Respondent’s argument that the Commission should determine if the appellant would have been selected. | The Court noted the submission of the counsel for the Commission that the appellant would have been successful had he been given the marks. |
The court did not cite any authorities but discussed the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring complete justice for the appellant. The Court noted that the appellant was denied appointment despite being entitled to it due to an error in the evaluation process. The Court also took into account the submission of the counsel for the State Public Service Commission that the appellant would have been successful had the marks been awarded initially. The Court balanced the need to provide relief to the appellant with the potential disruption to the seniority of other officers by directing that the appellant’s seniority would be counted from 01.08.2018. The Court also emphasized that the Division Bench should have decided the matter on merits instead of remitting the case back to the Single Judge.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Ensuring complete justice for the appellant | 40% |
| Rectifying the error in the evaluation process | 30% |
| Balancing relief with potential disruption to seniority | 20% |
| Ensuring proper procedure in intra-court appeals | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Supreme Court observed, “We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief.”
The Court further noted, “Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge.”
Finally, the Court stated, “In the above circumstances, we are of the view that 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.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ High Court Division Benches should decide intra-court appeals on merits instead of remitting cases back to Single Judges for re-evaluation of relief.
- ✓ The Supreme Court can intervene to ensure complete justice in cases where errors in evaluation have led to denial of appointment.
- ✓ Seniority can be adjusted to balance the interests of all parties involved.
- ✓ Appointment should be effected within four weeks from the date of the order and if not, the candidate is deemed to be appointed on 01.09.2018.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the appointment of the appellant to one of the available posts of Commercial Tax Inspector. The Court also clarified that the appellant’s seniority would be counted from 01.08.2018. The appointment was to be effected within four weeks from the date of the judgment, and if not, the appellant would be deemed to have been appointed with effect from 01.09.2018.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a Division Bench of the High Court should decide an intra-court appeal on merits instead of remitting the matter back to the Single Judge for re-evaluation of relief. The Supreme Court also reiterated its power to ensure complete justice between the parties. This judgment clarifies the scope of intra-court appeals in writ proceedings and underscores the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring equitable outcomes in service matters. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the procedural aspects of intra-court appeals.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Roma Sonkar vs. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission highlights the importance of ensuring fair evaluation processes in competitive examinations. The Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s role in rectifying errors and ensuring that deserving candidates are not denied their rightful appointments. The judgment also clarifies the procedural aspects of intra-court appeals, emphasizing that Division Benches should decide appeals on merits instead of remitting cases back to Single Judges. The court’s direction to appoint the appellant and adjust seniority is a significant step towards ensuring complete justice.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Appointment
Child Category: Seniority
Child Category: Intra-Court Appeal
Child Category: Article 226, Constitution of India
Child Category: State Service Exam
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Category: Article 226, Constitution of India
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Roma Sonkar case?
A: The main issue was whether a candidate should be appointed after a re-evaluation of marks in a state service exam and whether a Division Bench of the High Court can remit a case back to the Single Judge for re-evaluation of relief.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court directed the appointment of the candidate and clarified that seniority would be counted from a specific date. The court also held that Division Bench should decide the case on merits instead of remitting it back to the Single Judge.
Q: What is an intra-court appeal?
A: An intra-court appeal is an appeal within the same High Court, where a decision of a Single Judge is challenged before a Division Bench of the same court.
Q: What is the significance of Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
A: Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. This article is central to the High Court’s power to review administrative actions.
Q: What should a High Court Division Bench do in an intra-court appeal?
A: The Division Bench should decide the appeal on merits by considering the correctness of the Single Judge’s judgment instead of remitting the matter back to the Single Judge.
Q: What is the impact of this judgment on future cases?
A: This judgment clarifies the procedure for intra-court appeals and emphasizes the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring complete justice in service matters.
Q: What should I do if I find an error in my exam evaluation?
A: You should first use the RTI route to get the evaluated papers and then approach the High Court for relief.