CPC HOMEWORK-IX

ASHOK KUMAR YADAV v. STATE OF HARYANA

AIR 1987 SC 454

PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THIS CASE:

In this case, it was held that for constitutional bodies like the Public Service Commissions,
the member needed not abstain from the works of the commission in case his relative is one
of the applicants. He shall only recuse himself from that interview. It was also held that the
courts shall not make disparaging and defamatory remarks albeit they’re apposite for the
case. the Courts shall maintain utmost restraint keeping in the mind that the person
making the comment is also a human being and fallible.
FACTS:
This case emanates from several writ petitions filed before Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. In terse, the facts of the case are that the Haryana Public Service Commission
(‘PSC’) invited applications for recruitments to 61 posts in Haryana Civil Service and other
concerned services. The procedure for appointment is that the written examination will be
followed by a viva-voice. It was assailed in these writ petitions that three students are close
relatives of two members of the PSC. Hence, they were selected. High Court quashed the
appointments and made uncharitable observations on the Chairman and Members of the PSC.
Appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
PERTINENT ISSUES:
Albeit there are several issues yet it is only relevant to mention the below-mentioned issues.
Those are:
a. Whether the members of PSC could have abstained from the selection process
altogether as their kin are applicants in the selection process?
b. Whether the uncharitable comments made by the High Court is warranted?
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
The concerned arguments of the petitioners are that:
a. The members of the PSC participated in the selection process albeit their relatives are
applicants.
b. Although they had not taken part in the interviews of their respected relatives yet they
took the interviews of other candidates.
 CPC HOMEWORK-IX

c. this portrays the malice in the part of members. They intended to espouse their
relatives by reducing the scores of other applicants.
d. This clearly vitiates the entire process of selection.
RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS:
The respondents argued that:
a. The PSC is a constitutional authority.
b. Albeit the selection committees shall adhere to the general principle yet the PSC,
being a constitutional authority, need not adhere to it.
c. It espoused the principles of natural justice by abstaining from the interviews of the
relatives. This portrays the fact that “nemo judex in causa sua” was duly
acknowledged and followed.
d. Since the members did not participate in their relatives’ interviews, no violation of
Principles of Natural Justice occurred.
REASONING:
a. In relation to the first issue, the court opined that the general principle of complete
abstention will not be applicable to the constitutional bodies.
b. The members do not act in their personal capacity. They act under the rubric of
“PSC”. It’s a constitutional duty, which was imposed by the Constitution itself.
c. No man can be a judge in his own cause. One need not prove the actual bias. If the
party is successful in proving reasonable likelihood of bias then it is in accordance
with the principles of natural justice.
d. In this case, the interview members aren’t aware regarding the marks until the
interview. This negates the prior knowledge of marks
e. The unwarranted remarks were made by the High Court without any factual and
evidentiary basis. Disparaging and defamatory remarks should not be made and,
even where criticism is justified, it must be the language of utmost restraint,
keeping in mind that the person making the comment is also a human being and
fallible.
f. Albeit they were not impleaded in the writ petitions and yet the most damaging
observations were made against them. This was clearly in violation of the principles
of natural justice
g. when selections to the Judicial Service are being made in a State, a sitting Judge of
the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of the State should be invited to
 CPC HOMEWORK-IX

participate in the interview as an expert who, by reason of the fact that he is a sitting
High Court Judge, knows the quality and character of the candidates appearing for
the interview and the advice given by him should ordinarily be accepted, unless
there are strong and cogent reasons for not accepting such advice and such strong
and cogent reasons must be recorded in writing by the Chairman and members of
the Public Service Commission.
h. The considerations for VIVA VOICE and written examination were fixed.
JUDGMENT:
The court allowed the appeals and set aside the verdict of Punjab and Haryana High Court.