Service Law:
Appointment – Denial – Propriety of – Advertisement for appointment to the post of ‘Psychologist’ – After written examination appellant (candidate) was declared successful – At the time of verification of his documents, he was told that he was not eligible for appointment as he did not possess training qualification i.e. L.T./B.T.B.Ed. alongwith graduation with Psychology – Writ Petition by appellant – Dismissed by Single Judge of High Court – Order further confirmed in Special appeal and also in Review petition – On appeal, held: Advertisement cannot be read to mean providing for graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T.B.Ed.– A harmonious reading may mean that a person graduate in Psychology or L.T./B.T.B.Ed. with Psychology is eligible – Service Rules provide that Post Graduation in Psychology is qualification for the post and B.Ed’s is only preferential qualification – Any part of advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription – Appellant being a post-graduate in Psychology fulfills the qualification and hence entitled to be appointed on the post of Psychologist – Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamavali, 1991.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The advertisement cannot be read to mean providing for graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T. B.Ed. The words graduate/L.T./B.T. B.Ed. are all alternative qualification which are prefixed with word “In subject of Psychology”. A harmonious reading may mean that a person graduate in subject of Psychology or L.T./B.T. B.Ed. with Psychology is eligible. When the post is of Psychologist, both graduation with Psychology and training certification i.e. L.T./B.T. B.Ed. have also to be with Psychology. The respondents have wrongly interpreted the advertisement to mean that the person should possess both graduate with Psychology as well as L.T./B.T. B.Ed. which on the face of it does not appear to be correct.[Paras 14, 15] [703-D-F]
2. In advertisement, with regard to various qualifications, words “;k” (or) “lkFk” (with), “vFkok”(either) and stroke ‘(/)’ have been used. The appointing authority is well aware of the meaning of stroke ‘(/)’, word “or”, “either” and “with” which has been frequently used in the qualifications which is apparent from the advertisement. The Appointing Authority used word ‘with’(lkFk), when it wanted both the qualifications together. Wherever stroke ‘(/)’ has been used it was used, when either of the qualifications were indicated. [Para 17] [703-G-H; 704-A-B]
3. Before the aforesaid qualifications, the words “in Psychology subject” has been used as prefix, which clearly means that all the alternative qualifications were required to have with Psychology subject i.e. Graduation with Psychology/L.T./B.T. B.Ed. in the subject of Psychology. Hence, all the three i.e. Graduation, L.T., B.T. B.Ed. has to be in Psychology subject. Those persons who have done L.T./B.T. B.Ed. with Psychology subject are eligible like person graduated with Psychology, which is the plain and simple meaning of the advertisement. [Para 17] [705-D-E]
4. Janajitiya Vikas Skikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali (1991 Rules)clearly indicate that qualification for Psychologist is M.A. in Psychology. The B.Ed. is a preferential qualification and essential qualification is only M.A. in Psychology. The qualification prescribed in the Rules does not provide for L.T./B.T. B.Ed. as essential qualification. Thus non-possession of L.T./B.T. B.Ed. does not make him disqualified for the post as per Statutory Rules of 1991. Appellant is post-graduate in psychology and thus, also fulfills the qualification prescribed in the 1991 Rules. When under the statutory rules appellant fulfills the qualification; there is no occasion to deny appointment to him. [Paras 20, 21] [706-F-G; 707-B-C]
5. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, appellant fulfills the qualification and after being selected for the post, denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. [Para 22] [707-C-D]
Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 507 : [2006] 3
SCR 689 – relied on.
6. The appellant after being selected for the post of Psychologist was illegally denied issuance of appointment letter on wrong interpretation of the advertisement and the rules, hence, the appellant has made out a case for issuing a direction to appoint him on the post of Psychologist. [Para 23] [708-B-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.