Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Kailash Chandra Jyotishi And Ors.
- SCC(2018) 12 SCC 276
- Neutral2017 INSC 643
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where candidates are duly qualified according to law following subsequent recognition of their degree, a Public Service Commission is duty-bound under law to consider them for recruitment and make appropriate recommendations to the appointing authority, regardless of how the State Government proposes to accommodate them in available or future vacancies. The function of a Public Service Commission is limited to conducting recruitment in accordance with the request made by the appointing authority and making recommendations on duly qualified candidates; responsibility for appointment against actual vacancies rests with the State and cannot be discharged by the Public Service Commission.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9289 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 28364 OF 2015]
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Appellant (s)
VERSUS
KAILASH CHANDRA JYOTISHI AND ORS. Respondent(s)
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9328 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18493 OF 2017] [DIARY NO. 13338 OF 2017]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9322 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18485 OF 2017] [DIARY NO. 13339 OF 2017]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9323 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18486 OF 2017] [DIARY NO.13501 OF 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9324 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18487 OF 2017] [DIARY NO. 13502 OF 2017]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9325 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18489 OF 2017] [DIARY NO. 13684 OF 2017]
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9326 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18490 OF 2017] [DIARY NO. 13686 OF 2017]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9327 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18491 OF 2017] [DIARY NO. 13687 OF 2017]
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.05 12:54:43 IST KURIAN, J.
Reason:
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2
2. It is not in dispute that in view of the
subsequent developments, the degree obtained by the
writ petitioners (pvt. respondents herein) was duly
recognised and they had become duly qualified. If
that be so, there is a duty cast on the Public
Service Commission to consider them for recruitment,
as rightly directed by the High Court.
3. It is not the concern of the Public Service
Commission as to how the State will accommodate them
in respect of the vacancies available or to be
created. The duty of the Public Service Commission
is only to conduct the recruitment in terms of the
request made by the appointing authority. Once the
candidates are duly qualified, the Commission is duty
bound under law to consider them also for the
recruitment and make the appropriate recommendation.
The High Court has done only that.
4. It is also to be noted that the State Government
has not chosen to file any Special Leave Petition.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel that
these appeals have been filed as directed by the
State Government. We find it difficult to appreciate
the stand taken by the State Government. 3
5. The Public Service Commission is only an agency
to make the recruitment. Rest is for the State,
therefore, the State cannot bank on the Public
Service Commission as far as the appointments are
concerned.
6. For all the reasons stated above, we do not find
any merit in these appeals which are, accordingly,
dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi;
July 19, 2017.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free