4 Important Supreme Court Judgments Pronounced Today [Thursday, November 22, 2018]

1. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar

When recommendations were made for substantive number of posts on 12.08.2010, we are of the view that period of one year for operating wait-list is to be computed from 12.08.2010 but not from the last recommendation made for one post, vide letter dated 28.08.2012.

Case Number : C.A. No. 11149 of 2018 22-11-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Rajiv Yadav

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

2. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India

If a mob goads an elected MP to commit a far more serious offence, would it mean that the elected representative would act on the instructions of the mob and commit the offence? A large number of such situations can arise on a day to day basis and it is disconcerting to note that an elected member of a responsible political party can succumb to pressure from a mob rather than require the mob to follow the rule of law. In such a situation, the elected representative ceases to be a leader and becomes a blind follower.

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 4677 of 1985 22-11-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur

3. South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. SMS AAMW Tollways Private Limited

A right of appeal is a creature of statute and can only be exercised in the manner provided by the statute.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 (6) - Arbitration has always been understood to mean the process by which a dispute is resolved by an arbitrator chosen or acceptable to both sides under an arbitration agreement between the two parties.

Whether Clause 16.3 which provides for an appeal really provides for an arbitration and therefore whether the High Court was entitled to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act.

The present Clause 16 and in particular Clause 16.3 does not provide for the reference of any dispute that may arise between the parties to an Arbitrator. The purpose of this Clause is to vest the Competent Officer and the Commissioner with supervisory control over the execution of work and administrative control over it from time to time and thus to prevent disputes. The intention is not to provide for a forum for resolving disputes. Thus, in the present circumstances no Arbitrator could have been appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.06.2016 is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Case Number : C.A. No. 11249 of 2018 22-11-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Praveen Swarup

Respondent's Advocate : Vikas Mehta

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde

4. Central Board of Secondary Education v. T.K. Rangarajan

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Dentists Act, 1948 - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-UG (NEET-UG) 2018 - From the year 2019-20 onwards the NEET-UG Examination will be conducted by the National Testing Agency.

The bilingual examination will be conducted after the question paper is translated as set out according to the instructions in the affidavit dated 22.10. 2018 signed by Dr. Vikas Gupta, Director, National Testing Agency.

The High Court decided that nearly 24,000 students who took the examination in Tamil are entitled to four grace marks for each incorrectly translated question therefore, each of these students are entitled to a total of 196 grace marks, (i.e., 49 x 4). 

Assuming that there was some justification in the plea that students were prevented from understanding the question and therefore could not answer properly, we find it difficult to sustain the remedy provided by the High Court. The number of students that appeared in the NEET-UG, 2018 was 13,23,672, approximately 10.5 lakh took it in English, approximately 1.5 lakh opted for regional languages and of these nearly 24,000 candidates took the examination in Tamil language. Because of a mistake in translation which could have been detected and avoided by the students, we find it unjust that all the students across the board who took the examination in Tamil have been awarded four marks for all the 49 questions without any reference to the answer of those questions. The consequence is equally unjust and unacceptable as the students who gave the examination in Tamil have been unduly benefited only because they opted to give examination in Tamil. It is said that there are some students who might have otherwise failed but for the addition of marks by the High Court most of these students have scored higher than those who gave the examination in English and other regional languages. This is mainly due to the blind allocation of 196 marks to every student who gave the exam in Tamil.

The list of students who opted to give the NEET-UG, 2018 Examination in Tamil after the addition of 196 marks is startling. For instance, a student who got 260 marks has been awarded a total of 456 marks. A student with 137 marks becomes entitled to 333 marks and the student who got 92 marks becomes entitled to 288 marks. Even students who have 21 marks been entitled to 217 marks. It is clear that the High Court lost sight of the primary duty of Court in such matter that is to avoid arbitrary results.

For these reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 10.07.2018.

Case Number : C.A. No. 11230 of 2018 22-11-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Tara Chandra Sharma

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde