SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(SC) 289

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, Appellants
Versus
Dr. Sushil V. Patkar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2526 of 1991 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5728 of 1991)
Decided on 7-5-1991.

Failure to produce necessary qualification certificate at the interview stage cannot condone interference with the selection process and the rights of third parties.

Headnote:

Eligibility - Qualification - Selection Board

Fact of the Case:

The respondent did not possess the required qualification by the application deadline but was called for an interview. He failed to produce the necessary certificate and was not selected. The High Court directed a reappraisal of the candidate's claim and others, but the appellant challenged this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the candidate's failure to produce the required certificate at the interview stage could not be condoned, and his default should not upset the selection and interfere with the rights of third parties. The High Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was not justified.

Issues: Interference with selection process, eligibility criteria, High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226

Ratio Decidendi: A candidate's failure to satisfy the Selection Board on eligibility by producing the necessary qualification certificate cannot be condoned, and interference with the selection process that impacts the rights of third parties is not justified.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the pending petition in the High Court was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Special leave granted.

2. Heard counsel on both sides. The eligibility for appointment was that the candidate should possess M.Ch. qualification. The last date for forwarding the applications was 20th April, 1990 on which date, admittedly, the respondent No. 1 did not possess the said qualification since he claims to have qualified on 22nd May, 1990. Even so, respondent No. 1 was called for interview and he was asked to produce the certificate showing that he had acquired the qualification in question. He failed to-do so even at the interview stage and hence the Selection Board did not select him and informed him about the same. The Selection Board completed the selection and granted appointments accordingly. The respondennt No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order directed that the Selection Board may undertake a reappraisal of the claim of respondent No. 1 along with respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and prepare a fresh list of eligible candidates in accordance with merit for the post in question. In doing so, the appellant complained that the High Court had departed from the earlier decision of another Division Bench on the question of relaxation of time limit for furnishing the required certificate. We need not go into that question because, in our view, it is not possible to sustain the decision of the High Court for the simple reason that a candidate who was given an opportunity even at the belated stage of interviews to show that he possessed the necessary qualification for selection, having failed to furnish the certificate showing acquisition of qualification cannot be allowed to upset the selection and thereby interfere with the rights of third parties for his default. The Selection Board had no option but to ignore his candidature on his failure to satisfy it on the question of eligibility by producing the certificate of his having acquired the necessary qualification. He could not, therefore, be heard to say that his default should be condoned and the selection be upset notwithstanding its adverse impact on the rights of third parties.We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that it was not a fit case for interference by the High Court underArtiele 226 of the Constitution.

3. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the petition pending in the High Court will stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.

For Citation: AIR 1991 SC 1733

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top