JUDGMENT

THOMMEN, J. (for himself and Ramaswami,J.)-

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5407 OF 1992

[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12215 of 1992]

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment dated December 13, 1991 in L.P.A. No. 8 of 1985, the learned Judges of the Division. Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. As a result of the impugned judgment, the appellants, who were promoted as Assistant Engineers are in danger of being placed junior to persons who had obtained lower ranks than the appellants at the time of their appointment as Junior Engineers. At the time of selection to the post of Junior Engineers, the appellants were allotted higher ranks on the basis of merits in comparison to the respondents. Writ petition filed by some of thecandidates was rejected by the High Court on the ground of laches and also for the reason that the selection had to be broad based. A similar petition was filed by the present respondents and it was dismissed by the learned Single Judge which was reversed by the impugned judgment.

3. The question which arises in the present appeal is whether or not candidates who were fully qualified to be appointed as Junior Engineers on the dates of interview, but whose results had not been declared on the dates of submission of their applications, were entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer. If the answer is in the affirmative, the appellants who had become qualified on the dates of interview and had admittedly acquired higher marks in the interview were rightly appointed as Junior Engineers on the basis of their merits and were rightly promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer by reason of seniority in preference to the respondents who were also appointed as Junior Engineers and subsequently promoted, but placed junior to the appellants.

4. Advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer was published on June 9, 1982. The last date for submitting applications was specifically stated to be July 15, 1982. By that day, the appellants and the respondents had submitted their applications. The appellants had appeared for the B.E. (Civil) examination and had been awaiting their results until the results were published on August 21, 1982. Interviews were held on various dates commencing on August 24, 1982. The appellants were declared selected on April 21, 1983 and appointed as Junior Engineers. By reason of their merits, they were placed senior to the respondents. The respondents contended in the High Court that since the appellants were not qualified to apply for the post on the date of submission of applications as their results had not been declared until after that date, they were not qualified to appear for interview and the results announced on the basis of interview and the marks obtained by them were invalid and their applications ought to have been rejected, the announcement of the results prior to the interview and their obtaining higher marks, notwithstanding.

5. The respondents challenge against the selection of the appellants did not appeal to either of the two Single Judges who heard the writ petitions filed by some of the respondents. The learned Judges in their respective decisions held that the challenge was belated and the selection of the appellants who had obtained higher marks and who had been fully qualified prior to the dates of interview made the whole selection process broad based.

6. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, however, taking a technical view and on the wrong assumption of mala fide on the part of the appointing authority, reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and, by their impugned judgment, held that the appellants were wrongly selected.

7. Certain statements in the impugned judgment show that the learned Judges of the Division Bench assumed mala fide on the part of the concerned authorities in selecting the appellants. We have perused the relevant files and we s