Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KUMARI ANAMICA MISHRA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD AND ORS.

Decided
9 November 1989
Judges listed
RANGANATH MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 124 · 1989 INSC 339
Also cited as
  • (1990) Supp SCC 692 (13 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1990 SC 461 (6 citing judgments)
  • (1991) SCC(L&S) 461 (4 citing judgments)
  • 1989 SCC OnLine SC 414 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

MISRA, J. Special leave granted.

p. 125, margin B

The short question in these appeals is as to whether the High Court was right in upholding the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission to re-hold the recruitment examination.

p. 125, margin B

On the requisition of the State Government the State Public Service Commission had undertaken the recruitment to the post of Upper Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari (Women), District Inspectress of Girls Schools/ Associate Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools in Uttar Pradesh Educational Service-Junior Scale (Women's Branch) The advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates was published on May 5, 1985 and a corrigendum was published on June 8, 1985. The recruitment examination was in two stages-written and interview/personality test. After the written examination was over, on the basis of the results thereof successful candidates upto a base limit have to be ca.lied to be interviewed. On account of improper feeding into the computer some of the candidates who had better performance in the written examination were not called and candidates securing lesser marks in the written examination were not only called for interview but were also finally selected. When this position was known and upon an inqury was factually established, the Public Service Commission decided to cancel the entire recruitment examination and asked for re-holding of it. The High Court has upheld the action of the Public Service Commission and has dismissed the writ petitions.

p. 125, margin C

We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that when no defect was pointed out in regard to the written examination and the sole objection was confined to exclusion of a group of successful candidates in the written examination from the interview, there was no justification for cancelling the written part of the recruitment examination. On the other hand, the situation could have been appropriately met by setting aside the recruitment and asking for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates on the basis of the written examination and select those who on the basis of the written and the freshly-held interview became eligible for selection.

pp. 125–126, margin G

We allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the order of the Public Service Commission cancelling the written examination shall stand vacated. In lieu thereof we direct · that the results of the written examination shall stand sustained and shall form the basis for the interview part of the recruitment and on the basis of the two examinations and in terms of the recruitment rules fresh selections shall be made. We would clarify that with the dismissal of the special leave petitions the selection of the two Scheduled Caste candidates and five Backward Class candidates has become final and would not be disturbed.

p. 126, margin A

The State Public Service Commission should have been more careful in dealing with the matter so that four years in the process of recruitment would not have been lost and the public cause would not have suffered; public time would not have been wasted in requiring re-doing of what had once been done and the litigation could have been avoided. We have also not been able to appreciate the justification for cancellation of the written part of the recruitment examination and drive the candidates to litigation. On the facts alleged we direct that the recruitment which is now to be re-done by completing the interview examination should be finalised within four months hence.

p. 126, margin C

There shall be no order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

p. 126, margin E