Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Elect) by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission. The respondent, Farhat Rasool, applied on 13 February 1988 stating that he had passed the B.E. examination in 1987 securing 5608 marks out of 8000. The Commission held him ineligible on the ground that he had not passed by the application date; his result was actually declared on 31 March 1988 with 5569 marks out of 8000. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. A learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition in limine, accepting the Commission's stand. On appeal, a Division Bench set aside the single Judge's order and issued mandamus directing the Commission to declare the respondent's selection result and the State to appoint him as Assistant Engineer (Elect) with retrospective consequential benefits from the date other selected candidates were appointed. The Commission appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, contending that the respondent had made a false declaration and was ineligible. The respondent argued that he had passed the examination held in August 1987, that his result was withheld only for technical reasons shown as 'MPS/IR' in the general notification dated 23 October 1987, and that a formal declaration on 31 March 1988 should relate back to 23 October 1987. He relied on a University certificate stating admission to the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in August 1987, two communications from the Assistant Controller of Examinations dated 15 April 1992 and 1 October 1993, and the interview sheet mentioning 'UK 8/1987 DIV.I 69.7%'. He also relied on Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC 752. The Supreme Court examined the documents and found that when general results were declared on 23 October 1987, the respondent's result was withheld for two reasons: 'MPS' meaning marks for previous semester(s) awaited and 'IR' meaning incomplete registration. Only after those deficiencies were cured was the result declared on 31 March 1988 with 5569 marks out of 8000. The Court held that the University certificate merely showed admission to the degree in August 1987, not the date of passing. The two communications from the Assistant Controller could not alter the fact that by 13 February 1988, the date of application, the respondent had not passed the examination as he had claimed. The Court also noted that the respondent had given further wrong information about securing 5608 marks out of 8000, which appeared to have been mentioned to lend credence to the false statement of having passed. The Court distinguished Charles K. Skaria, observing that the question there was entirely different. It concluded that almost a fraud was sought to be played by the respondent by giving wrong information about his eligibility, and the benefit of such fraud could not be allowed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order, dismissed the respondent's writ petition, and left the parties to bear their own costs. (Paras 2-10)
Headnote
A) Service Law - Public Employment - Eligibility Qualification - Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission recruitment - Candidate who had not passed B.E. examination by the application date was ineligible; result declared later cannot cure false declaration - Court held Division Bench erred in mandating appointment; appeal allowed (Paras 2-10). B) Service Law - Misrepresentation and Fraud - Doctrine of Fraud - Benefit of false statement not allowed - Candidate stated he had passed B.E. in 1987 with 5608/8000 marks though result was declared on 31.3.1988 with 5569/8000; almost a fraud was sought to be played; benefit of such fraud cannot be allowed - Held that false eligibility declaration disentitled respondent to mandamus (Paras 8-9). C) Precedent - Applicability of Precedent - Distinguishing Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, 1980 (2) SCC 752 - Not applicable because the question for examination was entirely different; here eligibility condition was not fulfilled by application date - Held that respondent could not rely on that decision to claim relation back of result (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent No.1 was eligible for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Elect) when he applied on 13.2.1988 despite his B.E. result being declared only on 31.3.1988, and whether the Division Bench was justified in issuing mandamus for appointment based on an alleged false declaration of eligibility.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned Division Bench order set aside; respondent No.1's writ petition dismissed; parties to bear own costs.
Law Points
- A candidate must possess eligibility qualifications as of the application date
- false declaration regarding passing examination and marks disqualifies
- benefit of fraud cannot be allowed
- later declaration of result does not relate back to cure ineligibility
- University certificate showing admission to degree in a year does not prove date of passing
- precedent on equivalence or exemption not applicable where eligibility condition not met by application date
