SHUSMA CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.M. Haider Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Baghel and Sri Puspendra Singh for respondents no. 2 to 4. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 02.02.2009 the Commission has produced the answer-sheets of the petitioner for perusal of the Court. Having perused the same and having compared with the sample given by the examinee (which is taken on record), we do not find that the allegation made in para 13 of the writ petition that her marks have not been properly entered against her name is false and baseless. Having gone through the answer sheets and after perusing thereof being satisfied that there is no irregularity whatsoever therein, we find it a disturbing feature in this case where the petitioner, a candidate for a judicial service, has made such reckless and baseless allegations against a constitutional functionary. Public Service Commission being a constitutional functionary and autonomous body enjoy confidence and faith of the public at large in respect to its purity being maintained in the recruitment to public services. If the candidates appearing in the examination in such a reckless manner would drag the Commission in frequent litigation it would be extremely difficult for Commission to function smoothly and discharge its constitutional obligation. It is true that of late in the Commissions of some other States some aberration has been observed in conduct of their functioning but that would not mean that it would become an everyday affair to raise doubts over functioning of the Commission by every candidate. In Special Reference No. 1 of 1997, JT 2000 (3) SC 540 the Apex Court observed that the credibility of the institution of Public Service Commission is founded upon faith of the common man on its proper functioning. The faith would be eroded and confidence destroyed if it appears that the Chairman or the Members of the Commission act subjectively and not objectively or that their actions are suspect. Society expects honesty, integrity and complete objectivity from the Chairman and Members of the Commission. The Commission must act fairly, without any pressure or influence from any quarter, unbiased and impartially, so that the society does not lose confidence in the Commission. The high constitutional trustees, like the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission must for ever remain vigilant and conscious of these necessary adjuncts. If we doubt the Commission in its fairness and impartiality or if the Commission fail in its duty from the straight and narrow, both, it would be a great blow to democracy, and system of governance that we have given unto ourselves. It would also cause otherwise for the great vision in the constitutional framework or the future of the country. In observing that the Commission is a constitutional functionary, we should not be understood to put the Commission functioning in the matter of selection and recruitment beyond judicial scrutiny. Even an expert and constitutional body like the Commission is supposed to perform its duties fearlessly and carry out selections on the basis of the best merit available. However, if the aforesaid selections are alleged to be tainted and based upon consideration other than merit, the Commission cannot in such circumstances claim any immunity. In Jitendra Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2008(2) SCC 161 in para 14 of the judgement the Apex Court said: "All selections made by public servants are supposed to be based upon competence, merit and integrity. The allegations to be contrary would not only rode the public confidence in the Commission but would also result in merit being a casualty." The petitioner also ought to have behaved in more responsible and judicious manner being herself a candidate of judicial service in the State of U.P. However, it has chosen to make reckless and imaginary allegations against Commission without there being any substance or without placing any material to support her allegations on record. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this Court is duty bound to discourage such kind of litigation and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs which is quantified to Rs. 20,000/-. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- which the petitioner has already deposited with the Registrar General pursuant to our order dated 02.02.2009 shall be adjusted against the aforesaid cost and 50% thereof shall be paid to the Commission and rest shall be furnished to the Mediation Centre of Allahabad High Court.