Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1214

2009(5) Supreme 421
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
T. Nadu Computer SC B.Ed. G.T. Welf. Society — Appellant
versus
Higher Sec. Scl. Computer Tech. Assn. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25097 of 2008)
Decided on : 09-07-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Adv., Ms. Nupur Kanungo (for Vikas Mehta), Ms. N. Shoba, J. Sriram, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s):M.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., G. mapathy, Vibhu Tiwari, Rakesh K. Sharma, Mrs. Promila S. Thananjayan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In recruitment process changing rules of the game during selection process or when it is over are not permissible.

Headnote:Service Law – Post of computer instructor – Policy Decision taken by State Government that those Computer Instructors appointed by the contractors and who were in service on dates when Government took over responsibility of payment of their salary in Government schools immediately after expiry of contract period would be eligible to appear in the Special Test to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board – Said decision of Government to dispense with B.Ed.qualification was challenged by qualified B.Ed. graduates in Computer Science by filing writ petitions – Single Judge of High Court while disposing of writ petitions held that said Government M.S. Letter No. 188, was unsustainable and quashed the same – Writ appeals thereagainst by Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association – Division Bench set aside order of Single Judge holding that Single Judge was not justified in setting aside policy decision of Government – Appeals thereagainst – In order to give one time opportunity, a Special Recruitment Test was ordered to be held for selection and recruitment as also absorption of existing Computer Instructors – Prior to holding of the said Test guidelines were formulated through a policy decision laying down the criteria that minimum qualifying marks in the said test would be at least 50% – The said guidelines of Recruitment as laid down through a policy decision was sacrosanct and was required to be followed for all practical purposes even if it was accepted that the Government could have filled up the said posts of Computer Instructors by holding a Special Recruitment Test of the aforesaid nature as one time exception – However subsequent decision of Government thereby changing qualifying norms by reducing minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 35% after the holding examination and at the time when the result of the examination was to be announced and thereby changing the said criteria at the verge of and towards the end of the game, was arbitrary and unjustified – Appeals allowed. (Paras 15 to 18)
       Facts of the Case :
        1. A Policy Decision was taken by State Government herein in the instant case that those Computer Instructors appointed by the contractors and who were in service on dates when Government took over responsibility of payment of their salary in Government schools immediately after expiry of contract period would be eligible to appear in the Special Test to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board.Said decision of Government to dispense with B.Ed. qualification was challenged by qualified B.Ed. graduates in Computer Science by filing writ petitions. Single Judge of High Court while disposing of writ petitions held that said Government M.S. Letter No. 188, was unsustainable and quashed the same. On Writ appeals thereagainst by Higher Secondary School Computer Teachers Association,Division Bench set aside order of Single Judge holding that Single Judge was not justified in setting aside policy decision of Government.
        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of Division Bench.
       Findings of the Court :
        In order to give one time opportunity, a Special Recruitment Test was ordered to be held for selection and recruitment as also absorption of existing Computer Instructors. Prior to holding of the said Test guidelines were formulated through a policy decision laying down the criteria that minimum qualifying marks in the said test would be at least 50%. The said guidelines of Recruitment as laid down through a policy decision was sacrosanct and was required to be followed for all practical purposes even if it was accepted that the Government could have filled up the said posts of Computer Instructors by holding a Special Recruitment Test of the aforesaid nature as one time exception. However subsequent decision of Government thereby changing qualifying norms by reducing minimum qualifying marks from 50% to 35% after the holding examination and at the time when the result of the examination was to be announced and thereby changing the said criteria at the verge of and towards the end of the game, was arbitrary and unjustified.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals were filed and directed against the common Judgment and Order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the writ appeals filed by Respondent No. 1 and thereby dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant herein. The writ petitions were filed by the appellant herein contending, inter alia, that prior to 1999, graduates with Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications from a recognized University were appointed by Parents and Teacher Association of various schools as Computer Teachers in the said schools. In the year 1999, the Government took a policy decision to bring out a Scheme to offer computer education as a subject in about 1200 Government Higher Secondary Schools from the academic year 1999-2000. On 17.3.1999, the Chief Minister, while presenting the Budget for the year 1999-2000 before the Legislative Assembly informed on the floor of the State Assembly that the Government had decided to utilize the maximum of contemporary innovation in the information Technology for economic and social development of the State and thus proposed to draw a scheme for offering Computer Education based on curriculum designed by experts as an elective subject in the 11th and 12th standards in all the 1200 higher secondary schools in the State from the academic year 1999-2000. Pursuant to the aforesaid statement and assurance of the Chief Minister and the policy decision of the Government, the State Government on 19.03.1999 invited sealed tenders from reputed organizations and computer training centers for leasing out computer hardware and software and for providing computer training in 1200 Higher Secondary Schools in four regions, namely, Chennai, Trichy, Coimbator and Madurai for five years by engaging qualified instructors of their choice. Thereafter, the State Government entered into a contract with the Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT) for a period of five years giving them the responsibility to take all the steps for conducting the computer classes in about 1200 Higher Secondary Schools.

3. Pursuant to the instructions issued by the State Government, the ELCOT selected many agencies to fill up the vacancies by selecting qualified Computer Instructors. Such Computer Instructors were thereafter came to be appointed in two phases. In Phase-I, 1332 instructors were appointed in the year 1999 and in Phase-II 1062 Instructors were appointed in the year 2000, on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1,500/-, which was later on enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- per month.

4. In 1999, a writ petition came to be filed before the Madras High Court. While dismissing the said writ petition on 23.04.1999, the Madras High Court observed that in future, if the Government creates any permanent or sanctioned posts to impart education on Computer Science in Government Higher School, such posts should be filled up by recruiting candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and by following the rule of Reservation.

5. The aforesaid contract entered into with the private agencies came to an end by February, 2005. However, considering the welfare of the students, the contract employees were allowed to continue to work in the Government Schools. Thereafter, the Government had taken a policy decision in the year 2006 to have one post of “Computer Instructor” in every Government Higher Secondary School i.e. in all the 1880 Government/Corporation/District Municipalities/Municipalities Higher Secondary Schools. Consequent thereto a G.O. Ms No. 187, dated 04.10.2006 was issued, creating 1880 posts of Computer Instructors for the aforesaid various schools. It was also stated that the aforesaid posts of Computer Instructors would carry a pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000. It was also mentioned in the said Memorandum that all the aforesaid posts which are created would be permitted, on temporary basis subject to the rules in force and would be valid for one year from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1214

IMPORTANT POINT In recruitment process changing rules of the game during selection process or when it is over are not permissible.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
In recruitment process changing rules of the game during selection process or when it is over are not permissible.