DR. M.C. BINDAL versus R.C. SINGH & ORS.

DR. M.C. BINDAL versus R.C. SINGH & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that a candidate must comply with all qualifications specified in the advertisement, including the requirement of five years' experience. The Public Service Commission was entitled to verify the experience post-interview, and upon finding Dr. Bindal did not possess the required five years’ experience, was justified in withdrawing his recommendation and candidature. The Commission’s function under Article 320 is to recommend only those candidates fulfilling all the qualifications. The State Government cannot appoint a candidate whose recommendation is withdrawn for want of requisite qualifications.

Parties
Appellant/petitioner: Dr. M.C. Bindal; Respondent: R.C. Singh; Appellant: S.K. Majumdar; Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 September 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal and Writ Petition / Supreme Court Appellate and Original Jurisdiction After High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals by Dr. Bindal and State of U.P. dismissed; appeal by Dr. Majumdar allowed; writ petition by Dr. Bindal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Public Service Commission's Duty of Verifying Qualifications, Post Appointment Scrutiny and Withdrawal of Recommendation, Appointment Qualifications for Government Posts, Provisional Appointments, Consultation Under Article 320 of the Constitution
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Public Service Commission's Duty of Verifying Qualifications Post Appointment Scrutiny and Withdrawal of Recommendation Appointment Qualifications for Government Posts Provisional Appointments Consultation Under Article 320 of the Constitution

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. M.C. Bindal

Appellant/petitioner

R.C. Singh

Respondent

S.K. Majumdar

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal and Writ Petition / Supreme Court Appellate and Original Jurisdiction After High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a candidate lacking requisite experience can claim appointment to a government post when the advertisement specifies clear qualifications
  2. 2 Whether the Public Service Commission can withdraw a recommendation and candidature after finding non-fulfillment of qualifications
  3. 3 Whether consultation under Article 320 of the Constitution is mandatory or directory

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that a candidate must comply with all qualifications specified in the advertisement, including the requirement of five years' experience. The Public Service Commission was entitled to verify the experience post-interview, and upon finding Dr. Bindal did not possess the required five years’ experience, was justified in withdrawing his recommendation and candidature. The Commission’s function under Article 320 is to recommend only those candidates fulfilling all the qualifications. The State Government cannot appoint a candidate whose recommendation is withdrawn for want of requisite qualifications.

Court Disposition

Appeals by Dr. Bindal and State of U.P. dismissed; appeal by Dr. Majumdar allowed; writ petition by Dr. Bindal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 3926 of 1986 (Majumdar) allowed.
  • Civil Appeal No. 3797 of 1984 (Bindal) dismissed.