LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can rely on information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) from a superseded select list to determine a candidate’s marks, when a re-selection process has been conducted.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Arati Mohapatra
Judgment Date: 27 September 2021
Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 650
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) from a superseded list be the sole basis for determining a candidate’s marks in a selection process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of primary school teachers in Odisha. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Orissa was correct in relying on an initial select list, which had been set aside, to determine the marks of a candidate, instead of the marks obtained in the re-selection process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, with the opinion authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Case Background
In 1996, the State of Odisha initiated a recruitment process for primary school teachers. A list of 379 selected candidates was published on 31 January 1997, which included the Respondent, Arati Mohapatra, at Serial No. 301, with 114.80 marks. She was appointed as an Assistant Teacher and joined duty on 30 July 1997. However, some unsuccessful candidates alleged irregularities in the selection process, leading to litigation before the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
The SAT directed the preparation of a fresh select list, and subsequently, a re-selection list was prepared. In this re-selection, Arati Mohapatra’s marks were recorded as 109.86, which was below the cut-off for the general category. Consequently, she was terminated from service on 30 November 2006. Arati Mohapatra challenged her termination before the SAT, which initially linked her case to those terminated for document fabrication. This was later corrected in a review, but the SAT upheld her termination based on the reduced marks in the re-selection list.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 12 March 1996 | Procedure for recruitment of primary school teachers formulated in Odisha. |
| 31 January 1997 | Initial list of 379 selected candidates published, including Arati Mohapatra at Serial No. 301 with 114.80 marks. |
| 30 July 1997 | Arati Mohapatra joined duty as an Assistant Teacher. |
| 24 January 2001 | SAT directs the recruiting authority to prepare a fresh select list category-wise due to irregularities found in the initial selection process. |
| 02 December 2004 | SAT directs that a fresh select list be prepared within four months due to non-compliance of earlier order. |
| 15 December 2004 | A fresh selection list was prepared, and appointments made were withdrawn. |
| 08 September 2006 | A committee was appointed to prepare a fresh merit list and a re-select list. |
| 17 November 2006 | Re-selection list approved, showing Arati Mohapatra with 109.86 marks. |
| 30 November 2006 | Arati Mohapatra terminated from service. |
| 03 June 2014 | SAT disposes of Arati Mohapatra’s case, linking it to cases of forged documents, which was an error. |
| 21 October 2014 | SAT corrects the error in the review petition but upholds Arati Mohapatra’s termination based on the re-selection list marks. |
| 20 March 2018 | High Court directs the appellants to treat the respondent as having secured 114.80 marks. |
| 06 December 2018 | High Court dismisses the review petition. |
| 27 September 2021 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) initially directed a fresh select list due to irregularities in the original selection process. After a contempt petition, a fresh list was prepared, leading to the termination of several teachers, including Arati Mohapatra, due to discrepancies in marks. The SAT initially linked her case to those terminated for document fabrication, which was an error. Although this error was corrected in a review, the SAT upheld her termination based on the re-selection list marks.
Arati Mohapatra then approached the High Court of Orissa, which, relying on information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI), directed the appellants to consider her marks as 114.80, as indicated in the initial select list. The High Court dismissed the review petition filed against this order, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the selection process and the validity of the re-selection list. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was also considered in the context of whether information obtained under it can be the sole basis for a decision when the information pertains to a superseded list.
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellants (State of Odisha):
- The appellants argued that the High Court erred by relying on the initial select list of 31 January 1997, which was superseded by the re-selection list due to irregularities.
- They contended that the re-selection process was conducted as per the directions of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).
- The appellants submitted that the respondent’s actual marks in the re-selection were 109.86, which was below the cut-off for the general category. They stated that the marks were calculated by adding the marks obtained in matriculation (44.42), competitive test (51.04) and viva voce (14.40) which totalled to 109.86.
- The appellants stated that the marks of the respondent was correctly assigned in the re-selection process.
Arguments of the Respondent (Arati Mohapatra):
- The respondent argued that the information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) from official files showed her marks as 114.80 in the initial select list of 31 January 1997.
- The respondent contended that this information justified her selection and appointment, and that she was entitled to continue in service with the marks as 114.80.
- The respondent stated that the High Court had rightly directed the appellants to consider her case based on the marks of 114.80.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Marks | Marks should be as per the re-selection list (109.86) | Appellants |
| Marks should be as per the initial list (114.80) obtained under RTI | Respondent | |
| Reliance on Lists | Re-selection list should be considered as the initial list was set aside. | Appellants |
| Initial list obtained under RTI should be considered. | Respondent | |
| High Court’s Order | High Court’s order was erroneous as it relied on the superseded list. | Appellants |
| High Court’s order was correct as it relied on official information under RTI. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether the High Court was justified in taking note of the information merely because it was secured under the RTI Act, to be the basis for its conclusion.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in taking note of the information merely because it was secured under the RTI Act, to be the basis for its conclusion. | No | The High Court erred in relying on the initial select list obtained under RTI, as it was superseded by the re-selection list. The re-selection list was prepared after the initial list was set aside due to irregularities. |
Authorities
The Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the factual matrix of the case and the sequence of events leading to the dispute.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Initial select list of 31 January 1997 | Rejected as it was superseded by the re-selection list. |
| Re-selection list | Accepted as the valid basis for determining the respondent’s marks. |
| Information obtained under the RTI Act | Rejected as the sole basis for decision, as it pertained to the superseded list. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The High Court erred by relying on the initial select list. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court should not have relied on the superseded list. |
| The re-selection process was valid and as per the directions of the SAT. | Accepted. The Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of the re-selection process. |
| The respondent’s marks in the re-selection were 109.86, below the cut-off. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed with the calculation of marks and the subsequent placement of the respondent. |
| Information obtained under RTI showed her marks as 114.80 in the initial list. | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that this information was not valid as the initial list was superseded. |
| The High Court was correct in directing the appellants to consider her case based on the marks of 114.80. | Rejected. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The initial select list of 31 January 1997 was rejected as it was superseded by the re-selection list.
- The re-selection list was accepted as the valid basis for determining the respondent’s marks.
- Information obtained under the RTI Act was rejected as the sole basis for decision, as it pertained to the superseded list.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court focused on the sequence of events and the fact that the initial select list was set aside due to irregularities. The Court emphasized that the re-selection list, which was prepared as a result of the SAT’s directions, should be the basis for determining the respondent’s marks. The Court also noted that the respondent was not among those who had submitted fabricated documents. The Court held that the High Court’s reliance on the RTI information from the superseded list was erroneous.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Correctness | 40% |
| Factual Accuracy | 30% |
| Validity of Re-selection | 20% |
| RTI Information | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Supreme Court stated that the High Court was not justified in relying on the information obtained under the RTI Act, as it pertained to a list that had been set aside. The Court observed, “the information furnished under the RTI Act showing the name of the respondent at Serial No.301, having obtained 114.80 marks was the select list which was prepared for the first time, which was the subject matter of litigation; had been set aside and was therefore not reckonable.” The Court further noted that, “in the re-select list, the name of the respondent is shown at Serial No.474 having obtained 109.86 marks.” The Court concluded that the marks awarded in the re-selection list were accurate and in consonance with the stand taken by the appellants. The Court stated, “neither the respondent nor the High Court ought to have placed reliance on the same when the re-selection list prepared afresh was acted upon for appointment.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court had erred in relying on the superseded list and that the re-selection list was the valid basis for determining the respondent’s marks.
Key Takeaways
- Information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) cannot be the sole basis for a decision if that information pertains to a superseded list or process.
- When a selection process is set aside due to irregularities, a re-selection process is valid and the new list should be considered for appointments.
- Courts should not rely on superseded lists or information when a re-selection process has been conducted and is found to be valid.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 20.03.2018 and 06.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa and allowed the appeals with no order as to costs.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot rely on information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI) from a superseded select list to determine a candidate’s marks, when a re-selection process has been conducted. This case clarifies that when a selection process is set aside due to irregularities, the re-selection list is the valid basis for determining a candidate’s marks and for appointments.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Odisha vs. Arati Mohapatra clarifies that when a selection process is set aside and a re-selection is conducted, the results of the re-selection process are what should be considered valid. The High Court’s reliance on the initial list, even though it was obtained under the RTI Act, was deemed incorrect. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to due process and the validity of re-selection processes when irregularities are found in initial selections.