LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the selection process for drug inspectors was flawed due to procedural irregularities and the competence of the selection committee.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
Judgment Date: 28 March 2023
Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 309
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a selection process for public employment be invalidated due to minor procedural lapses? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of drug inspectors in Jammu and Kashmir. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court was correct in quashing the entire selection process due to alleged irregularities.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna, overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling that minor procedural irregularities did not warrant the cancellation of the entire selection process. The Court emphasized that the selection process was largely fair and transparent, and that the selected candidates had been serving for over a decade.
Case Background
On 05th May 2008, the Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Selection and Recruitment Board (the Board) issued Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 2008, seeking applications for 72 posts of drug inspectors. The advertisement specified that 42 posts were for the open merit category, 14 for Residents of Backward Areas (RBA), and 16 for other reserved categories.
The initial eligibility criteria required candidates to have a degree in Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, or a post-graduate degree in Chemistry with Pharmaceuticals as a special subject. Alternatively, a candidate could be a graduate in Medicine or Science with one year of post-graduate training in a recognized laboratory.
The Board initially approved a selection criteria that awarded 55 points for the basic qualifications, 25 points for a post-graduate degree in Pharmacy/Medicine and 20 points for viva-voce. However, on 12th June 2009, the Board revised the criteria, increasing the points for basic qualifications to 65, reducing the points for post-graduate degrees to 10, and retaining 20 points for viva-voce. 5 points were also added for Ph.D.
On 8th September 2009, the Board published a select list of 64 candidates. The selected candidates were appointed as drug inspectors on 12th November 2009. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection process before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 05th May 2008 | Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 2008 issued by the Board, inviting applications for 72 posts of drug inspectors. |
| 12th June 2009 | The Board issued a notification recasting the criteria of selection for the post of drug inspector. |
| 8th September 2009 | The Board published the Select List, recommending sixty-four candidates for appointment as drug inspectors. |
| 15th October 2009 | The Board placed the Select List before the Health and Medical Education Department for the issuance of appointment orders. |
| 12th November 2009 | The Office of the Controller, Drug and Food Control Organisation of Jammu and Kashmir, issued Appointment Orders. |
| 2009 | Unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir challenging the selection process. |
| 18th December 2015 | The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar quashed the selection process. |
| 6th July 2017 | The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu dismissed a writ petition relying on the judgment of the Srinagar bench. |
| 29th October 2021 | The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, modifying some directions. |
| 28th March 2023 | The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision, upholding the appointments. |
Course of Proceedings
The initial writ petitions were filed by unsuccessful candidates who raised several objections:
- They contended that the selected candidates had obtained their qualifications from universities not affiliated with the Pharmacy Council of India.
- They argued that the selection criteria were altered without justification, specifically the omission of the requirement for universities to be recognized and notified by the Central Government.
- They claimed that the selection committee lacked a complete quorum, as the Chairman of the Board did not participate in the interview process.
- They also argued that the expert member of the Interview Committee was not from the field of pharmacy.
- They alleged that candidates with post-graduate degrees were given undue advantage in the viva-voce.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar allowed the writ petitions on 18th December 2015, citing procedural irregularities. The Single Judge found that the award rolls prepared by the members of the Selection Board were not on record and the final award roll was not signed by the members, indicating a flaw in the decision-making process.
The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the findings of the Single Judge on 29th October 2021, modifying some of the directions. The Division Bench quashed the selection list and directed a fresh selection process, while allowing the current appointees to continue until the new process was completed.
Legal Framework
The selection process was governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992 (the 1992 Rules). Rule 9 of the 1992 Rules outlines the nomination of committees for conducting examinations and interviews. Specifically, Rule 9(i) states that the Chairman may nominate a committee consisting of one or more members of the Board for conducting the selection process. Rule 9(iii) allows the Chairman to associate an expert or specialist with the committee if necessary.
Rule 9 and 9A of the 1992 Rules state:
“9. Nomination of Committees:
(i) The Chairman may nominate a Committee “which shall consist of one or more members” of the Board for conducting examination and for holding interviews and tests for purposes of selection of candidates for being appointed to the State Cadre;
(ii)Every such Committee shall be chaired by the Chairman and where the Chairman is not a member of the Committee, by a member to be nominated by the Chairman, and
(iii) Chairman may, if he feels necessary associate with the selection committee expert/specialist in the discipline in which recruitment is to be made.
(iv) The Chairman may nominate a Committee of not less than three persons for conducting and holding examinations, interviews and tests for purposes of making selection of candidates for being appointed to divisional and District Cadre;
Provided that the said Committee shall be presided over by a member of the Board nominated by the Chairman and the other members of the Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman out of the panel or names drawn up and approved by the Board from time to time in this behalf. The selection made by the said Committee shall be approved by the Board before the same is forwarded to the appointing authority.
Provided further that in respect of selection for the posts falling in the District cadre, the District Officer of the discipline in which selection is required to be made, may also be accepted as member in the said Committee.
Provided also that the Chairman of the Board may constitute District Level Selection Committees for each district with Deputy Commissioner as Convenor/ Chairman for selection of Patwaris, as one time exception, for the year 1995 – 96.”
“9-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may for any special employment drive authorize the chairman to constitute following committees for the conduct of examination/tests and for holding interviews or both, as the case may be, for purposes of selection of candidates for being appointed to the State/Divisional/District cadre posts:
I. State Cadre posts
1. Chairman or any other Member of the Board to be nominated by the Chairman.
2. Head of the indenting Department or the Secretary of concerned Administrative Department.
3. Any other officer to be nominated by the Chairman.
II. Divisional Cadre posts
1. Member of the Board to be nominated by the Chairman, who shall be Convenor of the Committee.
2. Additional Commissioner of the concerned Division.
3. Head of the indenting Department.
4. Any other person to be nominated by the Member of the Board chairing the Committee.
III. District Cadre Posts.
1. Member of the Board to be nominated by the Chairman who shall be the Convenor of the Committee.
2. District Employment Officer of the district.
3. District Head of the indenting office/Department.
4. Any other person to be nominated by the Member of the Board chairing the Committee.
Provided that: –
(a) the Chairman may if he feels necessary coopt an expert, specialist in the discipline in which appointment is to be made in respect of the State Cadre post;
(b) the Member presiding over the Divisional level Selection Committee/district level Selection Committee may if he feels necessary coopt an expert, specialist in the discipline in which recruitment is to be made in respect of Divisional/District cadre posts as the case may be;
(c) The above Committees shall be presided over by the Chairman/Member of the Board as the case may be;
(d) In case of special circumstances, the Board may authorize the aforesaid Committee/Committees to forward the select list to the appointing authority and this action shall be deemed to have the approval of th e Board;
(e) The District Employment Officers shall be responsible to receive, compile and short-list applications for district cadre posts;”
The Supreme Court noted that the 1992 Rules do not prescribe a specific procedure for the appointment of drug inspectors. Rule 10(i) of the 1992 Rules states that the Board shall finalize the selections after holding such tests or examinations as may be prescribed under rules or if there are no such rules, as the Board may consider necessary.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that there was no rule or notification requiring the Selection Committee to retain individual award rolls or have the final award rolls signed by the members.
- They contended that the final select list was approved with the signatures of all seven members of the Board, including two members of the Selection Committee.
- They submitted that the calculations made on the individual basis of the candidates had been verified with reference to the records.
- They relied on Reserve Bank of India vs. C.L. Toora, (2004) 4 SCC 657, to argue that a Selection Committee can formulate its own reasonable procedure if no procedure is prescribed.
- They argued that the selection cannot be presumed to be erroneous in the absence of allegations of bias or favoritism, citing Union of India vs. Bikash Kuanar, (2006) 8 SCC 192, Sadananda Halo vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619, and University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SCR 575.
- They cited Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (2007) 8 SCC 644, to state that the non-availability of records does not imply mala fides.
- They argued that the power of judicial review does not extend to conducting a microscopic inquiry beyond the pleadings, citing Sadananda Halo.
- They contended that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the selection process, citing Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Union of India vs. Bilash Chand Jain, (2009) 16 SCC 601.
- They argued that unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection process cannot challenge it, citing Madan Lal, Anupal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 173, Sadananda Halo, and Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India, (2022) 1 SCC 294.
- They contended that the entire selection should not be set aside for specific instances of irregularities, citing Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, (2021) 4 SCC 631, Inderpreet Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356, and Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC 285.
- They submitted that the appellants have been working as drug inspectors for over 13 years without any complaints.
- They argued that the writ petitions were defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
- Specific submissions were made regarding the selection of Mr. Pankaj Malhotra, Ms. Rumeesa Mohammad, and Mr. Ashish Gupta, stating that their selections were valid even without the weightage for their M. Pharma degrees.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the Selection Committee was defective as the expert member was a doctor with a specialization in pharmacology, not pharmacy.
- They contended that the eligibility criteria were changed midway without justification.
- They argued that some selected candidates did not produce their original mark sheets or birth certificates at the time of the interview.
- They submitted that the selection process was arbitrary, as some candidates were given unusually high marks in the viva-voce.
- They argued that there was no estoppel to challenge the selection process, as they were unaware of the irregularities until after the selection.
- They relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, to argue that long years of service cannot protect an illegal appointment.
- They stated that there were sufficient vacancies to adjust all the petitioners.
Submissions
| Main Submission | Appellants’ Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural Irregularities |
|
|
| Expert Member Competence |
|
|
| Judicial Review |
|
|
| Participation in Selection |
|
|
| Validity of Selection |
|
|
| Long Service of Appellants |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar erred in quashing and setting aside the selection process conducted on 8th September 2009, for appointment of drug inspectors in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and the appointments published on 12th November 2009?
- What order?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court erred in quashing the selection process? | Yes, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred. | The Supreme Court found that the selection process was largely fair and transparent. The Court stated that minor procedural irregularities did not warrant the cancellation of the entire selection process, especially since the selected candidates had been serving for over a decade. The Court also emphasized that there was no evidence of mala fides or bias in the selection process. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
| Case Name | Court | Legal Point | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve Bank of India vs. C.L. Toora, (2004) 4 SCC 657 | Supreme Court of India | Procedure of Selection Committee | The Court relied on this case to support the argument that a Selection Committee can formulate its own reasonable procedure if no procedure is prescribed. |
| Union of India vs. Bikash Kuanar, (2006) 8 SCC 192 | Supreme Court of India | Presumption of Correctness of Selection Committee Decision | The Court used this case to emphasize that the decision of a Selection Committee is presumed to be correct unless proven otherwise. |
| Sadananda Halo vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh, (2008) 4 SCC 619 | Supreme Court of India | Presumption of Correctness of Selection Committee Decision and Scope of Judicial Review | The Court cited this case to support the argument that the selection cannot be presumed to be erroneous and that a roving and microscopic inquiry on factual aspects is not permissible in a writ petition. |
| University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SCR 575 | Supreme Court of India | Presumption of Correctness of Selection Committee Decision | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the selection cannot be presumed to be erroneous in the absence of allegations of bias or favoritism. |
| Trivedi Himanshu Ghanshyambhai vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (2007) 8 SCC 644 | Supreme Court of India | Non-availability of Records | The Court used this case to argue that the non-availability of records does not imply mala fides and cannot be a ground to cancel the selection. |
| Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579 | Supreme Court of India | Burden of Proof of Mala Fides | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the burden of establishing mala fides is heavily on the person who alleges it. |
| State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma, (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222) | Supreme Court of India | Burden of Proof of Mala Fides | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the burden of establishing mala fides is heavily on the person who alleges it. |
| Ajit Kumar Nag vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764 | Supreme Court of India | Burden of Proof of Mala Fides | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the burden of establishing mala fides is heavily on the person who alleges it. |
| Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar, (2005) 8 SCC 760 | Supreme Court of India | Burden of Proof of Mala Fides | The Court cited this case to emphasize that the burden of establishing mala fides is heavily on the person who alleges it. |
| National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 481 | Supreme Court of India | Recording of Reasons for Selection | The Court relied on this case to argue that in the absence of any rule requiring a Selection Committee to record reasons for selection, no fault can be found with the selection process due to the lack of individual award rolls. |
| B.C. Mylarappa vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah, (2008) 14 SCC 306 | Supreme Court of India | Recording of Reasons for Selection | The Court relied on this case to argue that in the absence of any rule requiring a Selection Committee to record reasons for selection, no fault can be found with the selection process due to the lack of individual award rolls. |
| Baidyanath Yadav vs. Aditya Narayan Roy, (2020) 16 SCC 799 | Supreme Court of India | Recording of Reasons for Selection | The Court relied on this case to argue that in the absence of any rule requiring a Selection Committee to record reasons for selection, no fault can be found with the selection process due to the lack of individual award rolls. |
| Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India, (2022) 1 SCC 294 | Supreme Court of India | Recording of Reasons for Selection and Participation in Selection Process | The Court relied on this case to argue that in the absence of any rule requiring a Selection Committee to record reasons for selection, no fault can be found with the selection process due to the lack of individual award rolls and that persons who participated in the selection process and interview cannot challenge the same upon being unsuccessful. |
| Madan Lal vs. State of J&K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 | Supreme Court of India | Scope of Judicial Review and Participation in Selection Process | The Court cited this case to support the argument that it is the exclusive domain of the expert committee to decide whether more marks should be assigned and that a writ court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the assessment made by the committee and that persons who participated in the selection process and interview cannot challenge the same upon being unsuccessful. |
| Union of India vs. Bilash Chand Jain, (2009) 16 SCC 601 | Supreme Court of India | Scope of Judicial Review | The Court cited this case to support the argument that a writ court is not an appellate court. |
| Anupal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 173 | Supreme Court of India | Participation in Selection Process | The Court cited this case to support the argument that persons who participated in the selection process and interview cannot challenge the same upon being unsuccessful. |
| D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom, (2017) 9 SCC 478 | Supreme Court of India | Participation in Selection Process | The Court cited this case to support the argument that persons who participated in the selection process and interview cannot challenge the same upon being unsuccessful. |
| Sachin Kumar vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, (2021) 4 SCC 631 | Supreme Court of India | Cancellation of Entire Selection Process | The Court relied on this case to argue that the entire selection cannot be set aside for specific instances of irregularities. |
| Inderpreet Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356 | Supreme Court of India | Cancellation of Entire Selection Process | The Court relied on this case to argue that the entire selection cannot be set aside for specific instances of irregularities. |
| Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC 285 | Supreme Court of India | Cancellation of Entire Selection Process | The Court relied on this case to argue that the entire selection cannot be set aside for specific instances of irregularities. |
| Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 | Supreme Court of India | Expert Committee’s Domain | The Court cited this case to support the argument that it was within the exclusive domain of the expert committee to decide whether more marks should be assigned to the candidates. |
| Buddhi Nath Chaudhary vs. Abahi Kumar, (2001) 3 SCC 328 | Supreme Court of India | Long Service of Appellants | The Court cited this case to support the argument that the appointment should not be set aside due to the long period of service rendered. |
| Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434 | Supreme Court of India | Scope of Judicial Review | The Court referred to this case to clarify the scope of judicial review of a selection process, stating that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of selection committees. |
| Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282 | Supreme Court of India | Sanctity of Selection Process | The Court cited this case to emphasize that courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion of expert bodies unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. |
| M. V. Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2008) 2 SCC 119 | Supreme Court of India | Sanctity of Selection Process and Scope of Judicial Review | The Court referred to this case to reiterate that the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of statutory rules and that courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority. |
| Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117 | Supreme Court of India | Selection by Expert Committee | The Court cited this case to support the argument that the process of selection by an expert committee is not left entirely to the sweet-will of the members of the committee. |
| Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576 | Supreme Court of India | Waiver and Estoppel | The Court cited this case to argue that having participated in a selection process without protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. |
| Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309 | Supreme Court of India | Waiver and Estoppel | The Court cited this case to argue that having participated in a selection process without protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. |
| K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 | Supreme Court of India | Waiver and Estoppel | The Court cited this case to argue that having participated in a selection process without protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. |
| Vibha Mathur vs. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 507 | Supreme Court of India | Waiver and Estoppel | The Court cited this case to argue that having participated in a selection process without protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. |
| Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Long Service of Appellants | The Court acknowledged this case, which stated that long years of service cannot protect an illegal appointment, but distinguished it from the present case. |
Legal Provisions Considered:
- Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Services Recruitment Rules, 1992
- Rule 9 of the 1992 Rules
- Rule 9A of the 1992 Rules
- Rule 10(i) of the 1992 Rules
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. The Court held that the selection process for the appointment of drug inspectors was valid and the appointments made in 2009 were upheld. The Court emphasized that minor procedural irregularities did not warrant the cancellation of the entire selection process, especially considering the long service of the selected candidates.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following key points:
- The selection process was largely fair and transparent.
- There was no evidence of mala fides or bias in the selection process.
- The selected candidates had been serving for over a decade without any complaints.
- Minor procedural irregularities did not warrant the cancellation of the entire selection process.
- The High Court should not act as an appellate authority over the selection process.
- Unsuccessful candidates who participated in the selection process cannot challenge it.
The Court also noted that the High Court did not consider the fact that the selected candidates had been working for a long time and had acquired valuable experience in their roles. The Court emphasized that such a drastic measure as cancelling the entire selection process should be avoided, especially when there is no evidence of mala fides or bias.
Case Flowchart