Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 1217

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Zahoor Ahmad Rather And Ors Etc – APPELLANTS
Versus
Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad And Ors Etc – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11853-11854 OF 2018 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS 30797-30798 OF 2017)
WITH
Javid Ahmad Dar And Ors – APPELLANTS
Versus
Naseer Ahmad Mir And Ors – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11855 OF 2018 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO 31196 OF 2017)
Decided On : 05-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Shashank Tripathi, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohd. Naseem Mughal, Manish Kumar V., Ram Naresh Yadav, Suryavir, M. Shoeb Alam, Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Shakil Ahmed Syed, G.M. Kawasa, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Clarifying the advertisement and directing to adhere to it is not changing policy midstream recruitment process.
A higher qualification cannot be “pre-supposed” to hold a lower qualification.
Minimum requirement of qualification is essential and cannot be dispensed with. Employer, however, may or may not allow weightage for higher qualification.

Headnote:(a) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralisation and Recruitment Act, 2010 – Section 5, 6 r/w Rules 13, 14, Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010 – Required qualifications for Technician-III , ITI with Matric – In some districts Diploma holders and ITI in different trades were interviewed – Board rectifying the defect by directing to strictly adhere to prescribed qualifications and holding that ITI should be in electrical trade – No error – Secondly, High Court holding that holder of a diploma being eligible for the higher post of Junior Engineer, must be “pre-supposed” to hold lower qualification of an ITI – Not correct – Equivalence of qualifications is for State to determine. (Para 18, 22)
       (2003) 3 SCC 541; (2003) 3 SCC 548; (2015) 2 SCC 170 – Relied upon
       SWP 1706/2000 CMP No 2727/2000 – Referred
       (2010) 15 SCC 596 – Distinguished
       (b) Service law – Recruitment – Eligibility criteria – Minimum requirement of qualification is essential – Cannot be dispensed with – Employer may or may not allow weightage for higher qualification. (Para 25)
       Facts of the case:
       The appellants applied for the post of Technician-III. The first appellant holds a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Appellants 2, 3 and 4 hold a Diploma in Electronics and Communication. Appellants 5 and 6 hold a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. None of them possesses the ITI certification.
       The appellants were not part of that list and were called for a written test.
       The appellants were not included in the select list. The reason for the omission is that none of them possessed an ITI qualification.
       The appellants in their writ petition sought the quashing of the select list framed without considering their position in merit and desired the reframing of the select list.
       The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions.
       In the Letters Patent Appeals the Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is nbo infirmity in impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C)Nos 30797-30798/2017:

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 12 October 2017. While allowing the Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court set aside a judgment of a learned Single Judge and, in consequence, directed that the writ petitions shall stand dismissed.

3. By a Government Order dated 4 December 1996, 23,297 posts were created in various departments of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 5,330 fresh posts were created in the Power Development Department, including among them 3,675 posts of Technician-III and 200 posts of Junior Engineer. The qualification for the post of Technician-III was “Matric with ITI”. The qualification for the post of Junior Engineer, which ranks higher in the hierarchy of posts, was a B E (electrical) / diploma (electrical).

4. On 23 February 2013, an advertisement was issued by the J & K State Service Selection Board (SSSB) for filling up the posts of Technician-III in the Power Development Department for various districts including Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal. Note 3 of the advertisement contained the following stipulations, which every applicant was required to fulfil:

“(3) In possession of the prescribed academic/ professional/ technical qualifications and fulfil all other eligibility Conditions wherever required as shown against each post in the Annexures by or before last date of receipt / submission of application forms i.e. 31.3.2013”

The advertisement also contained the following stipulation in Note 12:

“12. The prescribed qualifications reflect the bare minimum requirement of the job and mere possession thereof shall not entitle a candidate to be called for written test/ interview and also grant weightage to the higher qualification in relevant line / discipline as may be decided by the Board.”

Annexure C 1 to the advertisement specified the qualifications prescribed

for each post which was advertised. For the post of Technician-III in the

Power Development Department, the prescribed qualification was:

“Matric with ITI in relevant trade.”

5. The appellants applied for the post of Technician-III. The first appellant holds a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Appellants 2, 3 and 4 hold a Diploma in Electronics and Communication. Appellants 5 and 6 hold a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. None of them possesses the ITI certification.

6. On 14 August 2014, a list of disqualified candidates was notified by the SSSB. The appellants were not part of that list and were called for a written test on 23 August 2014. On 20 November 2014, a notification was issued for the purpose of shortlisting candidates who had cleared the written test, for the interview. The notification reflected the category – open or reserved – under which each candidate was considered. Interviews were conducted for the districts of Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal at which the appellants appeared.

7. On 31 January 2015, the SSSB held its 116th meeting at which, among the subjects on the agenda, was the following:

“Agenda No. 11. During the course of scrutiny of documents in the process of framing the selection lists for the post of Technician-III (Power Development Department), it has been observed that the Convener of the Interview committee (in some districts) has conducted the interview of candidates having Diploma in Electrical Engineering provisionally while as in some other districts, the candidates having Diploma in Electronics and communication Engineering, Electrical Engineering, B.E. (Electrical) have been declared as not eligible for the post in question. Furthermore, the candidates having ITI trade in general Electronic Mechanic, Weldar (Gas & Electric), Instrument Mechanic, Weldar (Gas & Arc), Information Technology and Electronic Systems Maintt. have also been interviewed for the post in question.”

8. The Minutes of the Meeting record that the following decision was arriv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 1217

Cases Referred (4)