Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

656
16. Learned counsel for the parties referred to decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court
about the scope of scrutiny in a petition under Article 226 with regard to selections done by the Public
Service Commission. It is settled as is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt.
Swaran Lata v. Union of India [(1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 165], where their Lordships quoted
the following passage:-
“It is entirely in the wisdom and discretion of the Commission what mode or method it
would adopt. That is subject to statutory provisions, if any. Where minimum qualifications
for eligibility are prescribed by a statute or by the Government, the Public Service
Commission cannot select a candidate who does not possess those qualifications.
However, the Public Service Commission is free to screen the applicants, classify them in
various categories according to their plus qualifications and/or experience, and call for
interview only those candidates who fall within those categories, eliminating others who
do not satisfy those criteria.”
In State of Bihar and others v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee and others [(1975) 3 Supreme Court
cases 602] their Lordships considered the scope of Article 226 in matters of selection and appointment
and it was observed:-
Madhya Pradesh PSC
“There is some force in the grievance of Counsel for the State that the Court should not
ordinarily call for cabinet papers and start scrutinising the notings and reports of the
various officers merely because a writ petition challenging the order has been made.
When a writ of certiorari is moved, the Court has the power to call for the record, but in
cases where mala fides is not alleged or other special circumstances set out, sensitive
material in the possession of Government may not routinely be sent for. The power of the
Court is wide but will have to be exercised judicially and judiciously, having regard to the
totality of circumstances, including the impropriety of every disgruntled party getting an
opportunity to pry into the files of Government. Of course, acts of public authorities must
ordinarily be amenable to public scrutiny and not be hidden in suspicious secrecy. We
are not satisfied that the High Court in this case should necessarily have looked into the
cabinet papers and back records, but the question has not been argued, except to the
extent of mentioning that the Court was not in order although the State Government had
produced the document on a direction. We leave the matter at that, for this reason.