Ankita Thakur & Ors. vs The H.P. Staff Selection Commission & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

9 November 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023

Result

Disposed

Bench

Hrishikesh Roy, Manoj Misra

Citation

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 813 : 2023 INSC 992

Issue for consideration

(i) Whether relaxation in the essential eligibility qualifications could be made post the last date fixed for receipt of applications; (ii) Essential eligibility qualifications specified in the Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014, if ambiguous to warrant clarification/relaxation; (iii) If there was a statutory regime in place to accord recognition to an Institution, if yes, whether the clarificatory letter/relaxation order is in ignorance of such statutory regime and therefore, invalid; (iv) In absence of prior consultation with the Commission, the relaxation/clarificatory order if was in conformity with the 2014 Rules; (v) Whether in view of requirement for a written and computer typing test prior to selection, possession of one year diploma in Computer Science/Computer Application/IT from a recognised University/Institution was not an essential eligibility qualification; (vi) Candidates holding qualifications other than the one prescribed by the 2014 Rules or the advertisement, though allegedly higher, if could be considered eligible; (vii) Employer if could be forced to fill all vacancies advertised; and whether it could be restrained from carrying it forward for filling it as per the amended/new Rules. Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology), Class-III, (Non-Gazetted), Ministerial Services, Common Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2014 – Recruitment of Junior Office Assistants– Essential eligibility qualifications under the Rules – Relaxation in, after the last date for receipt of the applications – Change in eligibility criteria midway – Legality:

Headnote

Held: If the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the advertisement – And when this power is exercised, there must be wide publicity of its exercise so that persons who are likely to benefit by exercise of such power may get opportunity to apply and compete – In the present case, it is not shown that the advertisement reserved the power to relax the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the advertisement at any later stage– It is not demonstrated that after the decision to relax the eligibility criteria was taken, the same was widely publicised – Further, the clarificatory/relaxation order providing equivalence to certain courses was not founded on empirical data – If there existed a statutory procedure for granting recognition, an Institution cannot be considered recognized dehors that procedure – Power to relax the eligibility criteria, even if it existed, was not exercised in consonance with the settled legal principles and it violated the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14, 16 – Relaxation/clarificatory order approved by the State cabinet after the last date fixed by the advertisements (for Post Code 447 and 556) for receipt of applications from candidates, is not legally sustainable qua those posts, when no opportunity was afforded to similarly placed persons who might have been left out to apply and compete with those candidates who, though not eligible as per the terms of the advertisement, had applied thereunder – Argument that requirement to hold one year diploma in the specified courses was not an essential qualification, rejected – Furthermore, there existed no provision in the extant Rules or the advertisement to treat any other qualification as higher or equivalent to the one specified, claim of candidates who could not demonstrate that they held the prescribed essential qualifications, rejected – An employer cannot be forced to fill all the existing vacancies under the old Rules – Directions contained in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment of the High Court, set aside – Further directions issued – Appointments already made under the first advertisement (for Post Code 447) not to be disturbed – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16 – Service Law – Appointment/Recruitment/Selection. [Paras 26, 27, 30, 35, 38, 39, 45]

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT MANOJ MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. All these appeals are directed against a common judgment and order1 of the High Court2 disposing of a batch of writ petitions as well as intra-court appeals concerning recruitment on the post of Junior Office Assistant3, a Class III (Non-gazetted) post, under the Government of Himachal Pradesh4. There being a commonality of law and facts concerning these appeals, they are being decided by a common judgment. Factual Matrix 3. As these appeals arise from multiple proceedings, a disclosure of relevant facts

View Subscription Plans →