IMPORTANT POINT
Whenever a selection is to be made on the basis of merit performance involving competition and possession of any additional qualification or factor is also envisaged to accord preference, preference would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred.

Headnote:Service Law-Recruitment method -Final list of successful candidates to be drawn up on basis of result of competitive Examination-Criteria for selection being the marks obtained in written examination and in interview-Educational qualifications prescribed-Persons possessing additional qualification-Claim for preference before picking up persons, who have been declared successful in screening test-Whether maintainable?-(No)-Preference clause in rules not to upset whole process of selection-Preference envisaged has to be given only when claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equally positioned-A.P. Labour Officers Subordinate Service Rules, 1985-A.P. Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services Rules, 1990.
       Held : Whenever, a selection is to be made on the basis of merit performance involving competition, and possession of any additional qualification or factor is also envisaged to accord preference, it cannot be for the purpose of putting them as a whole lot ahead of others, dehors their intrinsic worth or proven inter se merit and suitability, duly assessed by the competent authority. Preference, in the context of all such competitive scheme of selection would only mean that other things being qualitatively and quantitatively equal, those with the additional qualification have to be preferred. There is no question of eliminating all others preventing thereby even an effective and comparative consideration on merits, by according en bloc precedence in favour of those in possession of additional qualification irrespective of the respective merits and demerits of all candidates to be considered. If it is to be viewed they way the High Court and Tribunal have chosen to, it would amount to first exhausting in the matter of selection all those, dehors their inter se merit performance, only those in possession of additional qualification and take only thereafter separately those with ordinary degree and who does not possess the additional qualification. (Para 11)
       The rules do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or apply different norms of selection for them. The preference envisaged in the rules, in our view, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection for them alone. A mere rule of preference meant to give weightage to the additional qualification cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or rule of complete precedence. Such a construction would not only undermine the scheme of selection envisaged through Public Service Commission, on the basis of merit performance but also would work great hardship and injustice to those who possess the required minimum educational qualification with which they are entitled to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate their superiority, merit wise and their suitability for the post. It is not to be viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for consideration. On the other hand, the preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone or more of them are found equally positioned, by using the additional qualification as a tilting factor, in their favour vis-a-vis others in the matter of actual selection. (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

D. Raju, J.-The above appeals have been filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission challenging the order dated 16-12-1999 of the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 17997 of 1999 filed by the appellant, thereby repelling its challenge to the order dated 29-12-1998 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4465 of 1997 and the further order passed by the High Court on 16-11-2000 in Writ Petition Miscellaneous Petition No.4514 of 2000 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for review of the earlier order.

2. For a proper understanding of the grievance of the parties as well as the interpretation to be placed on the relevant provision in question, a reference to some of the vitally essential facts becomes necessary.

3. The appellant-Commission issued a Notification in advertisement No.8/90 on 23.7.1990 inviting applications for Direct Recruitment (General/Limited) to certain posts enumerated in Group-l (Honours Degree Standard) and Group-IIA (Bachelor s Degree Standard) Services, indicating that the Commission on the basis of the results of the Competitive Examination will draw up a list of successful candidates for filling up the vacancies in Group-I and Group-IIA Services referred to and indicated therein. We are concerned in these proceedings only with the selections made in respect of Group-IIA Services. Respondents 1 to 3 were three of the thousands of the applicants, who responded and underwent the process of selection. It appears that the Notification disclosed that the final list of successful candidates will be drawn up on the basis of the result of the Competitive Examination and the criteria for selection is the marks obtained in the said examination. Under the Scheme of recruitment to Group-IIA posts, the written examination would be followed by an oral interview. Based on the performance in the preliminary examination, it appears that the candidates would be called up for the main examination and based on the performance in the main examination, the candidates would be called for an oral interview and that marks obtained in the main written examination and in the interview formed the basis for selection to the post in the services in question. It is reflected from the facts averred that the respondents 1 to 3 have mentioned in the main application form submitted by them that they possessed B.Com., B.Sc. and B.A. respectively and, at the time of verification prior to the actual interview by the Commission during which a check list also was prepared for each candidate, the qualification disclosed was found to be B.Com., B.Sc., M.A. and B.A. respectively and, thus, at the relevant points of time the possession of the additional qualification itself does not seem to have been disclosed and brought to notice for consideration. By means of an additional affidavit filed on the directions of this Court on 9.7.2001, the details relating to the examination the manner in which the selection is made and the ranks obtained by the respondents 1 to 3 came to be disclosed and it is found from the same that a total of 3883 candidates were interviewed by the Commission and the ranks obtained by respondents 1 to 3 were 1303, 2637 and 2327 respectively. Merit-wise, it appears that there were above them 310, 279 and 101 candidates, respectively with higher ranking.

4. While matters stood thus, a list of selected candidates was said to have been published in March 1995 according to their ranks on the basis of merit performance and appointments were also made pursuant thereto. It appears that in the meantime O.A. No.2750 of 1993 was filed by a candidate, who applied for the post in Group-I Services under the same Notification seeking for consideration of his claims by giving absolute preference to the educational qualification possessed by him in Law in the matter of selection. The Tribunal by its order dated 13.7.1993 seems to have dismissed the same with an observation, after notici

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 481

Cases Referred (3)