Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 467

2006(5) Supreme 100
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Jammu and Kashmir High Court)
B.N. Srikrishna and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Narinder Verma & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5430-5434 of 2004
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 5435-5439/2004, 5440-5444/2004, 5445/2004, 5446-5450/2004 and 5451/2004
Decided on 8-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : V.R. Reddy, R.L. Khurana, Raju Ramachandran, M.L. Bhat, Sr. Advocates, Sunil Murarka, M.C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra, Anis Suhrawardy, Naresh Kaushik, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik Parmanand Gaur, E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agrawala, Rishi Agrawal, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, P.D. Sharma, P.P. Singh, Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, G.M. Kawoosa, N. Ganapathy, Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocates.

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties :V.R. Reddy, R.L. Khurana, Raju Ramachandran, M.L. Bhat, Sr. Advocates, Sunil Murarka, M.C. Dhingra, Gaurav Dhingra, Anis Suhrawardy, Naresh Kaushik, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik Parmanand Gaur, E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agrawala, Rishi Agrawal, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, P.D. Sharma, P.P. Singh, Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, G.M. Kawoosa, N. Ganapathy, Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the concerned rules are not challenged and the candidates participate in the selection process and become unsuccessful, such candidates are estopped from challenging the procedure thereafter.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1981 as amended — Appointment as Junior Engineers (Electrical) Grade II — Amended Rules require that for being eligible as a Junior Engineer, a candidate must possess either a Degree or Diploma in Electric/Electronic Engineering — Rules do not provide for any preferential treatment for either category of candidates — An advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineers — Several candidates holding either a Diploma or a Degree, as prescribed, applied for the post — Out of 300 selected candidates, 153 were Degree holders and 147 were Diploma holders — Some of the unsuccessful Degree holders challenged the Selection List — Writ petitions filed were dismissed by the Single Judge holding that criteria adopted had been made applicable uniformly to all the candidates, which was a proper method of selection — Whether Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside judgment of the Single Judge — (No).
Held : The impugned judgment of the High Court needs to be interfered with. As already observed, there was no challenge to the Rules in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in applying the Rules and upholding the selection process made by the State authorities. It was wholly unjustified on the part of the Division Bench to have interfered with the selection process on the basis of the criteria which were not laid down in the Rules and that too on an erroneous appreciation of the Rules. The High Court failed to see that the Rules made no distinction, whatsoever, between Degree holders and Diploma holders at the stage of recruitment for the purpose of minimum qualifications. In other words, no distinction was made between the two categories at the stage of recruitment, but a greater weightage was given to the Degree holders in the post-recruitment period in the form of a higher starting pay and also lesser number of years service requirement for qualifying for promotion to the higher post. We agree with the contention expressed by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was sufficient inbuilt balance maintained between the two categories of candidates and the impugned judgment of the High Court completely throws the Rules out of balance. What the Executive did not think fit to do by prescription in the Rules, could not have been done by a judicial flat.(Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Srikrishna, J. — This group of appeals arises from the same set of facts and from the same impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, hence, it would be convenient to decide all these appeals by a common judgment.

2. On 12.6.1997 the Government of Jammu & Kashmir, Power Development Department, by a notification amended the Jammu & Kashmir Power Development Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The amendment was as under:

“A) In part `A’ of Schedule II (Executive), for class-I, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

‘I ’A’ Junior Engineer (Elect) Grade-I (Selection Category) 2125-3600

100% by promotion from category ‘B’ provided that:-

a)Degree Holders possess at least 5 years service as such; and

b)Diploma Holders possess at least 10 years service as such

‘B’ Junior Engineer (Elect) Grade-II 1400-2300

Bachelors Degree in Electric/Electronic Engineering or three years Diploma in Electric/Electronic Engineering.

a)85% direct recruitment; and

b)15% by promotion from amongst three years Diploma Holders in Electric/Electronic Engineering from Recognised Polytechnic Institution having at least 5 years service in Class-III category ‘A’.

B. The following Notes shall be added after note (2) at the end of the Part (A) of the schedule:-

3) The existing Junior Engineers (Degree Holders) in the pay scale of 2000-3400 (revised) shall, however, retain their own pay scale till they are promoted as Assistant Engineers (Elect). The posts thus vacated by them on their promotions shall be automically (sic) converted into the scale of Junior Engineer Grade-II.

4) Degree Holders in Electric/Electronic Engineering on recruitment as Junior Engineer Grade-II shall be given a higher start on Rs.1720/- per month in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300.

5) The Diploma Holders having acquired AMIE (Section ‘A’ & ‘B’) qualification shall also on appointment as Junior Engineers Grade-II be entitled to a higher start of Rs.1720/- per month.

6) Similarly, a Diploma Holder functioning As (sic) Junior Engineer Grade-II and drawing pay at a stage lower than Rs.1720/- per month shall be entitled to refixation of his pay at the stage of Rs.1720/- per month on acquiring AMIE (section A & B) qualification.”

3. The amended Rules require that for being eligible as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) a candidate must possess either a Degree or Diploma in Electric/Electronic Engineering. The Rules nowhere provide for any preferential treatment for either category of candidates. The Power Development Department made a requisition to the Service Selection Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) for selecting Junior Engineers (Electrical) Grade-II. On a query raised by the Board the Power Development Department clarified on 19.9.1997 that “there is no need/justification for any quota to be laid down for intake of Diploma holders or Degree holders through direct recruitment as Junior Engineers (Electrical/Electronic)” and, further that, selection for Junior Engineers had to be entirely on the basis of merit. It was further clarified that “The methodology of determining merit amongst candidates having different educational qualification should be decided by the SSRB, to whom these posts have been referred.”

4. An advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Junior Engineers (Elect) Grade-II in the grade of Rs. 1400-2300 (pre-revised). The prescribed qualification for the said post was indicated in the advertisement as “BE/AMIE (A&B) India/Diploma in Electric/Electronic Engg.” Several candidates holding either a Diploma or a Degree, as prescribed, applied for the post. They were called for interviews for selection. Out of the 2229 candidates, who had applied, about 300 were selected and put on the Selection List and some more candidates were maintained on a waiting list. The result of the selection process was published on December 25, 1998. The selected can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 467

IMPORTANT POINTWhere the concerned rules are not challenged and the candidates participate in the selection process and become unsuccessful, such candidates are estopped from challenging the procedure thereafter.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the concerned rules are not challenged and the candidates participate in the selection process and become unsuccessful, such candidates are estopped from challenging the procedure thereafter.