Service Law: Staff Selection Commission – Eligibility under Notification – Rule of Construction – In the instant case, the respondents were applicants for different posts such as constables in Central Armed Police Forces, rifleman in Assam Rifles, etc. – They were kept out of merit list on the ground that they had failed to fulfill the eligibility requirement as notified in the Notification – Failure as alleged by the appellant authority was that one of the respondent had applied for the vacancies, the reservation with respect to which was circumscribed to a particular border district to which he was domiciled and since the vacancies in said district were not available, he could not be placed on merit list for the vacancies limited to other border district – Also the other respondent who indicated his preference for one particular service and not for other services cannot be considered for the appointment in other services on the basis of merit alone – Appellant authority also rejected one of the respondent for being considered for appointment in OBC reservation on the ground that the OBC certificate was not in a prescribed format – Respondents successfully filed appeals before High Courts – Hence instant appeals – Held: Once the vacancies are earmarked separately for different categories of border districts in the recruitment notification, it cannot be held that all border districts are to be treated alike, and hence appointment for vacancies in other border district cannot be made – Where the Notification provides for preference with respect to posts and the preference is made by the candidate with respect to only one particular post then he cannot claim appointment on other posts for which he has not made the preference on the basis of merit alone, particularly where such notification provides that the preferences so made by the candidate will be final and will not be changed under any circumstances – The question of OBC certificate to be in a prescribed format cannot be entertained in the appeal before the Apex Court as it is a question of fact and the same cannot be assessed on merits as considerable time period has lapsed and particularly in cases where physical fitness of an incumbent in an uninformed service is of utmost important.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. With respect to Civil Appeal Nos. 4586-4587 of
The respondent belonged to the border district of Baksa which came under Code “02”. As per Appendix-C to the Notification, the vacancies for the border districts coming under Code “02” of the State of Assam were “nil” in respect of BSF (Male and Female), Assam Rifles (Male) and ITBP (Male). Therefore, he could not have been considered for the vacancies earmarked for the border districts of Assam coming under Code “01”. But unfortunately, the High Court, in the impugned order, proceeded on a reasoning that all border districts are liable to be treated alike and that once a person is found to belong to one border district, he is entitled to be considered in respect of all border districts. The said reasoning of the High Court, if accepted, will tantamount to tampering with the Recruitment Notification. Once vacancies are earmarked separately for different categories of border districts, even in the Recruitment Notification, it is not possible to hold that all border districts are to be treated alike. Different considerations may weigh with the recruiting authorities for categorizing the border districts into two types. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in granting relief to the respondent on the ground that he must be considered as a person domiciled in the border district where vacancies were available, though he belonged to another border district, to which no vacancy was notified. [Paras 25, 26, 27][940-G-H; 941-A-C]
2. With respect to Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2018 & Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.3040830409 of 2019 In Column No.16 under paragraph 4.0 of Annexure-II, which is the brochure containing instructions for filling up the application, candidates were called upon to carefully indicate preference for the post under different Forces. It was also made clear that option once exercised will be final and that no change will be allowed thereafter. The preference for BSF was to be indicated by the alphabet “A”. The preference for CISF, CRPF, SSB, ITBP and Assam Rifles are to be indicated respectively by the alphabets “B”, “C”, “D”, “E” and “F”. The respondents are candidates who have clearly indicated their preference to one service only. Some candidates have indicated preferences to multiple services, as there was no prohibition under the Recruitment Notification to do so. What the Staff Selection Commission did was, to confine the consideration of candidates who indicated preference only to one service, to that service only. Candidates who indicated multiple preferences were considered for all those services and depending upon the cut off marks, they were allotted to any one of the services. Unfortunately, the respondents in these appeals indicated preference only to one service. They did not secure more than or equal to the cut-off mark for that service in the category to which they belonged. It is true that candidates who secured lesser marks than these respondents have been selected in other services, but it was because of the expression of their openness for appointment to any service, even at the time of submitting the application. The respondents have become wiser after the event. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the candidates cannot be pinned down to the preference indicated in the application form and that appointing persons who secured lesser marks and rejecting those who secured higher marks on this ground, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In doing so, the High Court clearly overlooked Column No.16 under paragraph 4 of Annexure-II, to the Notification. This is clearly erroneous. Therefore, the High Court was clearly wrong in granting relief to the respondents (i) by diluting the significance of preferences given by candidates; and (ii) in nullifying the effect of the instructions contained in Column No.16 of paragraph 4 of Annexure-II to the Recruitment Notification. [Paras 33-38, 44][942-B-H; 945-E]
Ram Bilash Ram v. State of Bihar and others 1986 SCC OnLine Pat 268 – held inapplicable.
Bindhyachal Kumar Singh v. Union of India and others 2013 SCC OnLine All 9828 – distinguished.
3. It is true that the power to issue caste certificates vests with the officers of the State Government and that there is no uniformity in this regard. Therefore, some leverage has to be given. But it is not known whether what is produced before the Court as Annexure R-8 along with I.A.No.76255 of 2018 was the caste certificate actually produced by that respondent. If this is the certificate that he had actually enclosed to his application, there would have been no occasion for the High Court to examine whether the objection relates to substance or mere form. At this level, in an appeal before the highest Court, it is not possible for us to look into this question of fact. This is especially so since the recruitment relates to uniformed services, where physical fitness of the incumbents is of utmost importance. A period of more than 10 years have now passed from the date of Notification. Therefore, at this stage it is not possible to enter into disputed questions of fact and grant relief to those two respondents. [Paras 48, 51][946-D, G-H; 947-A]
Union of India vs. M.V.V.S Murthy (1987) Supp.SCC
371 – referred to.
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.