Summary
An Urdu teacher at a Hubli college run by Anjuman-E-Islam Education Board applied for the post of Urdu Lecturer; the management postponed the appointment pending a subject expert's opinion but in 2009 appointed the appellant, approved by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education in 2010. On the teacher's writ petition a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court found the selection vitiated by fraud and manipulation of records, quashed the appellant's appointment and directed the management to forward proposals for appointing the writ petitioner; the Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal: the quashing stands, but a court that finds a selection vitiated by fraud cannot direct appointment of another candidate from the same process who was neither recommended by the committee nor approved by the competent authority; a fresh selection must be held.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, having quashed an appointment because the selection process was vitiated by fraud and manipulation of records, could direct that the writ petitioner, who was neither recommended by the selection committee nor approved by the competent authority in that process, be considered for appointment to the post.
Provisions considered
- Article 226 (scope of relief in a writ petition challenging an appointment), Constitution of IndiaThe Single Judge rightly quashed an appointment made without any valid resolution and through a fraudulent, manipulated process, but exceeded the proper relief by directing the management to forward the writ petitioner's documents for appointment; the only permissible consequential direction was a fresh selection following due process. (¶¶ 4, 6, 6.1, 7, 8)
Held
- Once the entire selection process is found to be vitiated by fraud, collusion and manipulation, the court should order a fresh selection following due process; it cannot direct appointment of the writ petitioner, who himself sought appointment under the very process found fraudulent and was neither recommended by the committee nor approved by the competent authority. The direction to forward his documents for appointment is unsustainable. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 8)
- The quashing of the appellant's appointment, based on findings that the recruitment was fraudulent and that no resolution appointing her existed, discloses no error and is confirmed; a fresh selection for the post of Urdu Lecturer is to be conducted under the monitoring and supervision of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, preferably within three months. (¶¶ 7, 8)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; the Karnataka High Court's judgments quashing the appellant's appointment as Urdu Lecturer confirmed, but the Single Judge's direction, undisturbed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 100066 of 2020 (judgment dated 24.09.2020), to forward documents and proposals for appointing respondent No. 10 as full-time Urdu Lecturer quashed; a fresh selection to be initiated under the supervision of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, preferably within three months. No order as to costs.