Roma Sonkar v. Madhya Pradesh State Public Service Commission
Background
The appellant had appeared for a 2010 Madhya Pradesh state service competitive examination and, through an RTI application, discovered that marks had not been awarded for certain answers that should have been credited. A Single Judge of the High Court granted her consequential benefits of appointment and seniority, but on appeal the Division Bench, while agreeing with this reasoning in principle, was unhappy with how the relief had been shaped and remitted the matter back to the Single Judge instead of deciding the appeal itself.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about a Division Bench remitting a writ matter back to a Single Judge merely over how relief was moulded, clarifying that in an intra-court appeal under Article 226, the Division Bench exercises the same jurisdiction as the Single Judge (not an appellate/subordinate one) and should itself decide the correctness of the Single Judge's view rather than send it back. On the facts, the Court directed the State to verify vacancy status, and once the Public Service Commission itself confirmed that the appellant would have been selected had she been given the correct marks, the Court directed, in the interest of complete justice and without treating it as a precedent, that she be appointed to an available post of Commercial Tax Inspector within four weeks, with her seniority counted only from 1 August 2018 (or deemed appointment from 1 September 2018 if the order was delayed).
Lesson Learnt
A Division Bench hearing an intra-court writ appeal should decide the matter on its merits rather than bouncing it back to the Single Judge over disagreement about the form of relief; and where an authority itself admits a candidate was wrongly denied marks that would have secured selection, courts can order appointment directly to do complete justice, while protecting existing employees' seniority.