Service Law:
Selection – Advertisement for filling up posts of “Technician III” – Qualification specified for the post was “Matric with ITI” – Appellants applied for the post – All of them possessed Diploma and none of them possessed ITI certification – They were called for written test as well as interview – Thereafter Service Selection Board decided that only ITI in the relevant trade would be considered for the post – Appellants were not included in the Select List – Appellants filed writ petitions seeking consideration of their candidature for selection to the post and sought for quashing of the Select List – Single Judge of High Court quashing the Select List held that it was not open to exclude the appellants after the process of selection was set in motion and that Diploma being higher qualification than ITI, their qualification was adequate for the post in question – In Letters Patent Appeals, Division Bench of High Court reversed the judgment of Single Judge – On appeal, held: The Board did not bring about any change in the Rules or in the norms governing the selection mid-stream – It only resolved to adhere to the qualification which was prescribed in the advertisement – It would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes acquisition of lower qualification – It is for the State to determine whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent qualification – The stipulation in Note 12 of the advertisement that the Board was entitled to assign additional weightage for a higher qualification vests in the Board with a discretion in pursuance of an enabling power, which may or may not be exercised – A candidate has no vested right to assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional weightage to a higher qualification – Therefore, Division Bench AND ORS.
was right in holding that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualification – However, since the appellants have spent nearly four years in pursuing their quest for the job and might have become age barred, they are granted age relaxation to the extent of four years to apply for any post advertised by the State in the next two years.
Judicial Review:
Prescription of qualification – For recruitment to a post – Judicial review – Permissibility – Held: Prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy – It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications – Similarly equivalence of a qualification is also not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The prescribed qualifications for the post of Technician-III in the Power Development Department is a Matric with ITI in the relevant trade. The Board at its 116th meeting took notice of the fact that in some districts, the interviews had been conducted for candidates with a diploma in Electrical Engineering while in other districts candidates with a diploma had not been considered to be eligible for the post of TechnicianIII. Moreover, candidates with an ITI in diverse trades had also been interviewed for the post. The Board resolved at its meeting that only an ITI in the relevant trade namely the Electrical trade is the prescribed qualification specified in the advertisement. [Para 17][1093-A-C]
2. The Board did not bring about any change in the rules or the norms governing the selection mid-stream. There was no deviation from prescribed requirement for the post, of ITI with Matric. In fact the Board resolved to adhere to the qualification which was prescribed in the advertisement. An anomalous situation had arisen as a consequence of which, despite the prescribed qualifications, interviews of diploma holders had been conducted in some districts. This was plainly in breach of the conditions of the advertisement and was rectified by the Board. [Para 18][1093-D-F]
3.1 The second ground which weighed with the Single Judge of High Court was that the holder of a diploma is eligible for the higher post of Junior Engineer and hence a candidate who holds a diploma must be “pre-supposed” to hold the lower qualification of an ITI. Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State, as the employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. [Paras 18 and 22] [1093-E-F; 1097-D-G]
3.2 While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. [Para 23][1098-A-C]
P M Latha v. State of Kerala (2003) 3 SCC 541 : [2003]
2 SCR 653 ; Yogesh Kumar v. Government (NCT of Delhi) (2003) 3 SCC 548 : [2003] 2 SCR 662 ; State of Punjab v. Anita (2015) 2 SCC 170 – relied on.
Jyoti KK v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010)
15 SCC 596 – distinguished.
AND ORS.
4. The stipulation that the qualification prescribed is the bare minimum requirement of the job emphasises that it is an essential requirement, a threshold which cannot be dispensed with. Under Note 12 of the advertisement, the Board is entitled to assign additional weightage for a higher qualification. Whether such a weightage should be assigned is a matter for the Board to determine. The SSSB did not assign an additional weightage for a higher qualification. In not exercising an enabling power, no fault can be found with the SSSB. An enabling provision postulates a discretion which may or may not be exercised. A candidate has no vested right to assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional weightage to a higher qualification. All that Note 12 postulates is that the mere possession of the prescribed qualification will not entitle a candidate to be called for the written test or interview. The Board may shortlist among eligible candidates by granting a weightage to a higher qualification in the relevant line or discipline. But the words “as may be decided by the Board” in Note 12 indicate that the Board is vested with a discretion in pursuance of an enabling power which it may or may not exercise. [Para 25][1098-F-H; 1099-A-C]
5. The Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. There is no error in the decision of the Division Bench. [Para 22][1097-G-H; 1098-A]
6. The appellants applied in 2013 in pursuance of the advertisement that was issued by the SSSB. They were pursuing their remedies in the writ proceedings which ultimately culminated in the order of the Single Judge dated 1 August 2017. The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed on 12 October 2017. Having regard to these circumstances, the appellants should be granted an age relaxation to the extent of four years should they apply for any other post that may be advertised by the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the next two years. The age relaxation of four years shall be available to the appellants for any post advertised upto 30 November 2020. [Para 26][1099-E-H]
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.