1. Selection for teacher training — Dispute over award of marks for IRDP family status — Non-submission of certificate with application. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1716
1997(1) Supreme 184
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Mrs. Seema Kumari Sharma -Appellant
versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14531-532 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.12493-94 of 1996)
Decided on 23-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : T.A. Khan, T. Sridharan, Advocates.
Important Points
Failure to furnish a supporting certificate along with the application does not disentitle a candidate from claiming marks or status benefits, provided the eligibility can be established through available records.
Subject
Administrative Law - Education
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Junior Basic Teachers Training-Criteria for selection-10 Marks were allotted for candidates belonging to IRDP families-Appellant claimed to belong to IRDP family but her claim was not considered-Her writ petition was dismissed holding that he had not produced the certificate along with application-Certificate produced before Supreme Court-Certificate did not bear date of issue but had been given serial number of IRDP family-Failure to furnish Certificate along with application did not disentitle her to claim status for consideration of award of 10 marks-Case of appellant to be considered on merits in accordance with rules. (Para 2)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether failure to produce a status certificate along with the application disentitles a candidate from claiming marks based on that status. (Para 2 )
3. The presence of a serial number on the certificate indicates the candidate's status, making the initial failure to furnish the certificate non-fatal to the claim. (Para 2 )
4. Failure to furnish a status certificate with an application does not disentitle a candidate from claiming such status if the status is otherwise verifiable. (Para 2 )
5. Appeals allowed — Tribunal order set aside — Direction to declare results and consider appointment in accordance with rules. (Para 3 )
6. Does the failure to submit a status certificate along with an application automatically disqualify a candidate from claiming marks associated with that status?
No. If the candidate can subsequently produce a certificate that verifies the status, such as one containing a serial number ascribed to candidates, the initial failure to furnish the certificate does not disentitle them from claiming the status for the award of marks. (Para 2 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have learned counsel on both sides.
2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Shimla Bench made in O.A. No.619/95 and the review order. The admitted position is that the Director of Education issued a notice for Junior Basic Teachers Training. The criteria for selection was 100 marks based on the percentage of marks obtained in matric or equivalent examinations. 20 marks for candidates belonging rural areas and 10 marks for candidates belonging to backward panchayat were allotted. Similarly, 10 marks were allotted for candidates belonging to IRDP families. Though the appellant claimed to belong to IRDP family, the authorities have not considered her claim and consequently did not award 10 marks as required under the criteria. When the appellant filed the writ petition, the High Court dismissed the same holding that the appellant had not produced the certificate along with the application and, therefore, she is not entitled to the above status. When we directed the appellant to produce the record, she made the certificate a part of the record. Unfortunately, it does not bear the date of issue; but we find that she has been given serial number of the IRDP family. In view of the fact that serial numbers are ascribed to all the candidates in the order, we are of the view that her failure to furnish the certificate along with the application does not disentitle her to claim the status for consideration of award of 10 marks. Pursuant to the interim direction granted by this Court, the appellant has already appeared for the examinations conducted but her result has not been announced.
3. Therefore, the appeals are allowed; the order of the Tribunal stands set aside. There shall be a direction to declare the result and her case for appointment will be considered in accordance with the rules, if she is selected. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******
