RESHMA SULTANA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

RESHMA SULTANA versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

The Court upheld quashing and setting aside of the appellant's appointment because the recruitment/selection process was found to be fraudulent and the resolution appointing the appellant was interpolated or non-existent; however, the Court held that the High Court erred in directing that documents be forwarded to appoint the original writ petitioner pursuant to the same tainted process, and therefore that part of the Single Judge's order (not interfered with by the Division Bench) was quashed; the correct remedy is a fresh selection under supervision of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to be completed preferably within three months.

Parties
Appellant: Reshma Sultana; Respondents: The State of Karnataka & Ors.; Original Writ Petitioner / Respondent No.10: Ilyas Ahmed Patwegar; Respondent No.2: Commissioner of Collegiate Education
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court (w.p. No.100066 of 2020)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Selection, Appointment, Quashing of Appointment, Fresh Selection, Fraud, Collusion, Manipulation
Service Law Administrative Law Selection Appointment Quashing of Appointment Fresh Selection Fraud Collusion +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reshma Sultana

Appellant

The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Respondents

Ilyas Ahmed Patwegar

Original Writ Petitioner / Respondent No.10

Commissioner of Collegiate Education

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court (w.p. No.100066 of 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether after holding an appointment to be invalid because the selection process was vitiated by fraud and manipulation, the High Court could direct appointment of another candidate who was not recommended by the selection committee nor approved by the competent authority under the same recruitment process

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld quashing and setting aside of the appellant's appointment because the recruitment/selection process was found to be fraudulent and the resolution appointing the appellant was interpolated or non-existent; however, the Court held that the High Court erred in directing that documents be forwarded to appoint the original writ petitioner pursuant to the same tainted process, and therefore that part of the Single Judge's order (not interfered with by the Division Bench) was quashed; the correct remedy is a fresh selection under supervision of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to be completed preferably within three months.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • The High Court and Single Judge orders quashing and setting aside the appellant's appointment as Urdu Lecturer are confirmed.
  • That part of the Single Judge's order directing forwarding of documents and proposals to appoint the original writ petitioner (respondent No.10) pursuant to the 2007 recruitment is quashed and set aside.