Judgment

SAWANT, J.- The admitted facts in the present case are that the respondent applied for Grade I and Grade II teacher posts (Post Graduate Teacher and Trained Graduate Teacher posts respectively) in September 1985 pursuant to a newspaper advertisement calling for applications for the said posts. Admittedly, the qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the said posts was a second class degree in MA, and the respondent held a third class degree in MA. However, it appears that on December 27, 1985, an order was issued wrongly by appellant 1 appointing her as a Post Graduate Teacher in Hindi. The order stated that her appointment was subject to the production of original certificates and to the compliance with the other necessary formalities. When purusant to the order, the respondent approached the authorities with the certificates, it was noticed that the respondent was not qualified for the post. She was, therefore, not allowed to join the service, and was sent back.

2. The respondent thereafter approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad representing to the Tribunal that pursuant to the order of December 27, 1985 she had joined her duties on January 2, 1986 and that she should be allowed to continue in service with all the benefits from that day. The Tribunal passed the impugned order directing the appellants to allow her to join the duties and to pay to her salary from the date she reported for her duties in compliance with the order of December 27,1985. The Tribunal also awarded costs against the appellants.

3. We are of the view that the Tribunal is clearly in error. The reasons given by the Tribunal in support of its order are, firstly, that the appellants had issued the order of appointment knowing fully well that she was not qualified, and secondly, that she was selected for the appointment because there was no other candidate available with better marks.

4. It has been brought to our notice during the course of the arguments that the original selection was made by mistake on the presumption that the respondent had satisfied the qualification requirements as stated in the advertisement, without scrutinising the certificates copies of which were sent with her application. The Selection Committee presumed that all those who had applied in response to the advertisement must have had the requisite qualifications needed for the posts. However, the order appointing the respondent had made it clear hat the respondent should come along with the original certificates. When the respondent approached the appellants with the originals of the certificates which were scrutinised, it was found that in fact she was short of the qualifications. It is in these circumstances, that she was not allowed to join the service. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellants had selected the respondent with the knowledge that she was under qualified. According to us, there is a good deal of force in this contention. It is common knowledge that sometimes either by mistake or otherwise the notes put up before the Selection Committee contain erroneous data prepared by the office, and sometimes the Selection Committee proceeds on the basis that all those who appear before it, are otherwise qualified. However, the second stage at which the documents are scrutinised is when the higher authorities go through them at the time the candidate concerned approaches them for resuming (sic assuming) duties along with the original certificates. It is at that stage that the mistake was discovered in the present case and the respondent was not permitted to resume her duties. We see nothing wrong in action.

5. The observation of the Tribunal that there were no other candidate available with better marks is, in the circumstances, a half-truth because assuming that she had better marks among those who had applied, it seems that no one with second class had applied or the applications only of the third class candidates were conside