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

2011 Supreme(SC) 949

Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR & SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
Bedanga Talukdar
Versus
Saifudaullah Khan & Others
I.A. No. 5-8 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8343-8344 OF 2011 [Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.20152-20153 of 2010]
Decided on : 28-09-2011

Advocates appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:M/s. Jayant Bhushan & V. Hazarika, Sr. Advocates, Manish K. Bishnoi (AOR), Gautam Talukdar, Shakunt Saumihra, R.B. Phookan, Goodwill Indeevar (AOR), Rajiv Mehta (AOR), Ms. Vartika Sahay & Ms. Deepika (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved.

Headnote:Service Law – Appointment – All appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 – Selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure – Particular schedule mentioned in the advertisement has to be scrupulously maintained – There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved – Instantly advertisement excluded power of relaxation – Direction of High Court to consider claim of respondent no. 1 on basis of identity card submitted after completion of selection process – Not permissible. (Para 28, 29, 31)

       (1992) 2 SCC 206 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent no. 1, a locomotor disable person, appeared at the Assam PSC examination but did not submit his disability ID along with the application. He did not submit the same even with the Main examination as required.

       He submitted the same at the time of interview.

       He was therefore treated as general candidate and could not be selected.

       High Court directed the Commission to consider the candidature of respondent no. 1 on the basis of the said ID.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court emphasized that the selection process for public employment must adhere strictly to the terms and conditions outlined in the advertisement. Any deviation or relaxation of these conditions, such as accepting certificates or documents after the stipulated deadline or from authorities not specified in the advertisement, is generally not permissible unless the advertisement explicitly grants the authority to relax such conditions. This approach ensures fairness, transparency, and conformity with constitutional mandates, preventing arbitrary or biased decision-making in the recruitment process (!) (!) .


Judgment :

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010 in Writ Petition (C) No. 950 of 2010 and impugned judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2010 in Writ Petition (C) No.3382 of 2010 passed by the High Court of Guwahati, allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent No.1 whereby Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “respondent No. 3”) was directed to examine the entitlement of respondent No.1 by taking into account the identity card produced by him.

3. We may notice the bare essential facts necessary for the determination of the controversy involved in these appeals.

4. The respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement on 10th August, 2006 bearing advertisement No.6/2006, announcing its intention to hold the preliminary examination of the Combined Competitive Examination, 2006 for screening candidates for the Main Examination for recruitment to various posts educated in the advertisement. The last date for the receipt of the completed application forms was fixed as 11th September, 2006. In this advertisement, although, posts had been reserved for various categories such as OBC/MOBC, SC, ST(P) and ST(H), but there was no reservation in favour of the disabled candidates as required under the Persons with Disabilities [Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation], Act,1995.

5. Consequently, a Public Interest Litigation being P.I.L. No.61/2006 was filed in the High Court by Order dated 13th March, 2007. The High Court by an interim order directed respondent No.3 not to conduct any examination during the pendency of the petition. By order dated 13th March, 2007, the High Court directed respondent No.3 to make a fresh advertisement on the basis of the requisitions to be received from the Government of Assam (respondent No.2) incorporating reservation of 3% for persons with disabilities.

6. In compliance with the orders of the High Court dated 13th March, 2007, respondent No. 3 issued a corrigendum on 5th June, 2007 reserving three per cent vacancies for Physically Handicapped persons, in terms of Persons with Disabilities [Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation], Act,1995. Applications were invited for one post in the Assam Civil Service Class-I (Jr. Grade) from persons suffering from Locomotor Disability, in connection with the conduct of Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2006 for screening candidates for the Main examination for the posts already mentioned in the earlier advertisement No. 6/2006. It is evident that this corrigendum was issued in continuation of advertisement No. 6/2006 dated 10th August, 2006. It was provided therein that candidates, who had applied earlier to the advertisement No. 6/2006 dated 10th August, 2006, need not apply again but the candidates with Locomotor Disability must produce supporting documents in the office of the Assam Public Service Commission or in the examination hall before the commencement of the examination. The Last date for submission of the applications under the corrigendum was 6th July, 2007.

7. Respondent No.1 had applied in response to the advertisement dated 10th August, 2006. Since there was no requirement for submission of any details with regard to any disability, he had not submitted any disability certificate. Although, in view of the corrigendum, respondent No.1 was not required to make an application afresh, he was required to produce necessary supporting documents in the office of the Commission or in the examination hall before the commencement of the preliminary examination. Respondent No.1 had been certified by the District Medical Board, Dhubri, to be physically disabled to the extent of 50% on 21st January, 2004. On the basis of this certificate, respondent No.1 was issued an identity card by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhubri on 18th February, 2004 which specified his disability to be Locomotor Disability to th





























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top