MOHD SHARIFF HAMDANI Vs. CENTRAL EXAMINATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the four writ petitions under Art. 32 2A of the Constitution of India as applicable to the State for1 issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners in the Examination of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars held by the Central Examination Board, Revenue Department, in Katik 2007.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these petitions are that all the four petitioners appeared in the Depart - mental Examination of Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars 2007, by the Central Examination Board. The result of this examination was published in the Gazette under the Ministry of Revenues No. A -21/51, dated 24 -1 -1951. But the result of such candidates as were already in service including the petitioners was withheld and they were required to appear in the examination again, if they so desired, but they were not told why their result was withheld Vide the order referred to above. Some of these candidates including the petitioners made representations that their result should be declared. The matter was reconsidered by the Board and from the relevant record of the Revenue Secretariat it appears that the present Revenue Minister along with two members of the Board, namely, the Revenue Commissioner and the Revenue Secretary, felt that the case of such candidates as did not sit in the subsequent examination and had been agitating for the release of their examination result deserved consideration and their representation had some force. But it appears that later on the Board followed the advice of the fourth member and came to the conclusion that the decision already taken could not be revised in the case of the departmental candidates who had appeared from the Kashmir centre Vide the note of the Revenue Minister dated 22nd December, 1954 and the order of Revenue Minister dated llth January, 1955. Thereupon the Ministry of Revenue issued a fresh order on the 19th or the 20th January, 1955. In this order it was stated that, according to the decision of the Central Examination Board, Revenue Department, the result of the Departmental Examination of Naib Tehsildars and Tehsildars held in Katik 2007 at Srinagar and Jammu centres of such candidates as belonged to services was withheld, because certain complaints had been received of unfair means having been used by such of these examinees who appeared at Srinagar centre. It was further stated in the order that after careful consideration of the matter the Board found themselves unable to upset the decision already taken in regard to the candidates who belonged to service and appeared at Srinagar centre, as it was found by the Board that unfair means were used by these candidates in that centre and, therefore, there was no adequate reason to reconsider the decision already taken about them. The Board, however, felt that there was some, justification for declaring the result of the examinees who had appeared from the Jammu centre and had not taken any subsequent examination and ordered accordingly.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that, as the original order was passed in 1951 before the Constitution Application to Jammu and Kashmir Order, 1954 came into force, no writ could be issued in respect of a decision that had been taken in the pre -Constitution period. The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly opposed this contention. A bare perusal of the record and the facts stated above makes it quite clear that no final order was issued in this case in 1951. All that orders No. A -21/51, dated 24 -1 -1951 said as already indicated, was that the result of such examinees as were already in service had been withheld and that they were at liberty to appear again in the subsequent examination, if they so desired. This order can in no sense be treated as a final order. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners under R. 22 of the Rules for enrolment, examination and appointment of candidates for the post of Naib Tehsildar sanctioned by the Ex. Ruler on 8th February, 1934, the result of the examination, after being considered by the Central Committee was to be published in the Government Gazette. In the rule it was clearly stated that "the result of the examination ............ shall, after being considered by the said Committee, be published in the Government Gazette. There is no provision in these rules by which the result could be withheld. It was only in the order issued in January 1955 that the petitioners were told that their result had been withheld in the sense that it had been cancelled, because it had been found that they had used unfair means. Under these circumstances the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has no force and is overruled.