Back
1989 Supreme(Del) 328
High Court Of Delhi
KANTA RANI - Appellant
Versus
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Respondent
Civil 598 of 1989
Decided On : 08/28/1989
A.BHATTACHARYA, ANIL BHATNAGAR, DHRUV AGARWAL, M.M.Sudan, REKHA AGARWAL, Sat Pal, V.P.Singh
A cut-off date for possessing an educational qualification for a job is arbitrary and unreasonable if it is prior to the advertisement and the last date for submitting the application, and if it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - ELIGIBILITY - CUT OFF DATE - ARBITRARINESS - WRIT PETITION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - ADVERTISEMENT FOR RECRUITMENT OF PRIMARY TEACHERS - EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION - CUT OFF DATE FOR POSSESSION OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION - WHETHER ARBITRARY - WHETHER HIGH COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE ADVERTISEMENT FIXING THE DATE OF ELIGIBILITY - WHETHER PETITIONERS ENTITLED TO CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
The Staff Selection Commission published an advertisement for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers (Primary) for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The advertisement specified certain educational qualifications and a cut-off date of 1st August 1988 for possessing the educational qualification. Two candidates, who had appeared for the B.Ed examination in April 1988 but whose results were declared on 17th August 1988, filed a writ petition challenging the cut-off date as arbitrary and unreasonable. The Delhi High Court held that the cut-off date was arbitrary but declined to grant any relief as the examination was scheduled to be held shortly. The candidates filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which dismissed the petition but left open the question of whether the High Court could interfere with the advertisement fixing the date of eligibility. Subsequently, several other candidates who had also been affected by the cut-off date filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Delhi High Court held that the cut-off date of 1st August 1988 for possessing the educational qualification was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court noted that the cut-off date was prior to the advertisement and the last date for submitting the application, and that it had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which was the employment of a large number of teachers. The court also noted that the Staff Selection Commission had itself changed the criteria for determining the eligibility of educational qualification from the last date of receipt of applications to the cut-off date of 1st August 1988, and that this change had been made without any justification.
Issues: 1. Whether the cut-off date of 1st August 1988 for possessing the educational qualification was arbitrary and unreasonable? 2. Whether the High Court could interfere with the advertisement fixing the date of eligibility? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to consequential relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cut-off date of 1st August 1988 for possessing the educational qualification was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court noted that the cut-off date was prior to the advertisement and the last date for submitting the application, and that it had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which was the employment of a large number of teachers. The court also noted that the Staff Selection Commission had itself changed the criteria for determining the eligibility of educational qualification from the last date of receipt of applications to the cut-off date of 1st August 1988, and that this change had been made without any justification. 2. The court held that it was not open to it to decide the question of arbitrariness of the cut-off date afresh, as that question had been left open by the Supreme Court. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to consequential relief, as they had replied to the advertisement and applied before the prescribed date, had been given roll numbers to sit for the examination, and had been declared successful.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in accordance with their respective positions on the merit list.
( 1 ) A piquant situation had developed in his case and we were not quite clear at the beginning as to how we should proceed, consequently, we heard the matter at length.
( 2 ) ON 6th October, 1988, Mr. A. K. Dhull and Mr. Narendra Singh filed Civil Writ No. 2306/88. They impleaded the Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as respondents.
( 3 ) IN the said petition, it was mentioned that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was running a large number of primary schools and employed thousands of teachers Consequently, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi requested the Staff Selection Commission to select Assistant Teachers (Primary) for them. In response to this request the Staff Selection Commission published an advertisement on 17th September, 1988 and specified certain educational qualifications.
( 4 ) THE only part of this advertisement with which Mr. Dhull and Mr. Singh were aggrieved was the note appended to the educational qualification, which reads: "candidates who have yet to appear at the academic/certificate examination or whose result has been withheld or not declared on or before 1. 8. 1988 are not eligible. "
( 5 ) THE case of these two gentlemen was that both of them had enrolled themselves at the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and had sat for the B. Ed examination in April, 1988 but the declaration of results, holding them successful, was issued by the University on 17th August, 1988. They contended that the date of 1st August, 1988, fixed by the Staff Selection Commission, as the educational eligibility date was arbitrary and there was no rationale behind fixation of this cut off date especially as the last date for submitting applications was 10th October, 1988 and the written examinations were to be held on 18th December, 1988. They also indicated that in some examinations held by the Union Public Service Commission Central Recruitment Board etc. candidates were permitted to take the examination even if they did not have the requisite qualifications on that date as long as they "come to possess the minimum educational qualification subsequently".
( 6 ) ON 7th October, 1981 a Bench of this Court issued notice to show-cause to the respondents why rule maye not issued. On 4th November, 1988, the petition was disposed of in limine with the following order : "the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the last date for submission of application was 10. 10. 1988 but it was provided that the candidates musi possess the qualifications prior to 1. 8. 1988. The petitioners have acquired qualifications after 1. 8. 1988 but prior to 10. 10. 1988. The contention of Shri V. P. Singh, the learned counsel, for the petitioner before us, is that this is contrary to recognised principles and even the Handbook of examination conducted by the UPSC. We find that the contention of Mr. Singh is prefectly correct and the date has been fixed arbitrarily. The question now arises as to whether at this stage we could exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents to readvertise the post and invite fresh applications. It has been stated that as many as 35000 applications have been received and 1000 teachers are to be selected. The examination has to be held on 18. 12. 1988. In case we make the rule absolute, the result would be that the respondents will have to invite fresh applications and it would be absolutely impossible to hold the examination on 18. 12. 1988 as is already fixed. The further result would be that 35. 000 applicants who have been waiting for a chance will be deprived of such a chance for quite some time. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioners. However, in case for any reason the examinations are postponed Mr. Sat Pal learned counsel for the responden
