Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Thahira P. – Petitioner
Vs.
The Administrator, UT of Lakshadweep & Ors. – Respondents
Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Civil) No. 33281 of 2016
Decided On : 17-04-2018
(b) Administration of justice – Judicial review – High Court taking into consideration the method of calculation of marks – Held High Court ought not take this exercise because it was not an issue raised by petitioner – Further, objection was filed after cut-off date – Held, Administration was fully justified in not considering the objection or rejecting it as being time barred. (Para 15, 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep (Directorate of Education) issued an advertisement inviting applications from local candidates between having a bachelor’s degree in Sociology from a recognised University for appointment to the post of Social Education Organizer.
The petitioner Thahira applied for the post. She had obtained a B.A. Degree in Malayalam and Sociology (Double Main) from the University of Calicut in Kerala. Similarly, respondent No. 4 Kadeeja also applied for the post. She had a B.A. Degree in Sociology (Single Main) from the same University.
A check list was prepared in which Thahira was ranked first.
After the cut-off date, Kadeeja is said to have filed an objection to the check-list.
A rank list was then published for the post of Social Education Organiser in which Thahira was placed at Rank No. 1 and Kadeeja was placed at Rank No.2.
On 7th June, 2011 Thahira was appointed to the post of Social Education Organiser on a temporary basis.
Kadeeja preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the appointment of Thahira.
The Tribunal allowed the application filed by Kadeeja and it was held that the composite marks obtained by the candidates should be taken into consideration for making the selection. Consequently, the marks obtained by Kadeeja in her subsidiary subjects were also taken into consideration and on that basis it was held that the appointment of Thahira was not justified.
A writ petition was preferred by Thahira before the High Court. The High Court upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. In other words, the appointment of Thahira was struck down.
Finding of the Court:
High Court should not consider an issue which was not raised.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th September, 2016 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in O.P. (CAT) No. 126 of 2016.
2. The Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep (Directorate of Education) issued an advertisement inviting applications from local candidates between 18-25 years having a bachelor’s degree in Sociology from a recognised University for appointment to the post of Social Education Organizer.
3. The petitioner Thahira applied for the post. She had obtained a B.A. Degree in Malayalam and Sociology (Double Main) from the University of Calicut in Kerala. Similarly, respondent No. 4 Kadeeja also applied for the post. She had a B.A. Degree in Sociology (Single Main) from the same University that is the University of Calicut.
4. The Administration considered all the applications and on 24th May, 2011 published a check list of candidates who had applied for the post of Social Education Organiser. The check-list mentioned the desirable qualification was BSW/MSW from a recognised University and as regards the degree of Bachelor in Sociology it was mentioned that Sociology would be given 85% weightage, BSW 5% weightage and MSW 10% weightage.
5. Based on the above, the check-list showed that Thahira was Rank No.1 having obtained 48.03% marks while Kadeeja was Rank No.2 having obtained 46.43% marks.
6. The check-list was accompanied by a notice of the same date published for the information of all the applicants. It was mentioned in the notice that in case of any mistake in the personal data or in the marks entered in the check-list, the same may be brought before the department till 1 p.m. on 26th May, 2011. It was also stated in the notice that no complaint would be entertained after the stipulated time and date.
7. On 27th May, 2011 that is after the cut-off date, Kadeeja is said to have filed an objection to the check-list. The objection was limited to the allegation that Thahira did not have the required qualification for the post of Social Education Organiser since she had a degree in Malayalam and Sociology (Double Main). No objection was raised to the weightage given to the qualifications.
8. It appears that the objection raised by Kadeeja was not accepted or not considered by the Administration being beyond time. Be that as it may, a rank list was then published on 4th June, 2011 for the post of Social Education Organiser in which Thahira was placed at Rank No. 1 and Kadeeja was placed at Rank No.2.
9. On 7th June, 2011 Thahira was appointed to the post of Social Education Organiser on a temporary basis.
10. Feeling aggrieved, Kadeeja preferred an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No. 666 of 2013 dated 18th July, 2013 challenging the appointment of Thahira. The Administration filed a reply to the application to the effect that since no objection had been received to the check-list, within the prescribed time, the list was finalised and the rank list published.
11. One of the issues adverted to before the Tribunal was whether the degree obtained by Thahira in Malayalam and Sociology (Double Main) was equivalent to a degree in Sociology (Single Main). The University of Calicut filed an affidavit on 4th September, 2013 to the effect that the question of equivalence had not been considered by the Academic Board of the University.
12. By an order dated 15th March, 2016 the Tribunal allowed the application filed by Kadeeja and it was held that the composite marks obtained by the candidates should be taken into consideration for making the selection. Consequently, the marks obtained by Kadeeja in her subsidiary subjects were also taken into consideration and on that basis it was held that the appointment of Thahira was not justified.
13. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, a writ petition being O.P. (CAT) No. 126 of 2016 was preferred by Thahira before the High Court of Kerala. The
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
