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

1989 Supreme(All) 612

High Court Of Allahabad
U.C.Srivastava, S.H.A.Raza, JJ.
Leena Khare - Appellant
Versus
U. P. Higher Education Service Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 1130, 1730, 2583, 2641 and 2696 all of 1989
Decided on : Dec 16,1989

Selection of teachers should be made on the basis of qualifications as it existed at the time of issuing advertisement and not on the basis of qualifications as it existed at the time of selection.

Headnote:

ADVERTISEMENT FOR SELECTION OF TEACHERS - RELAXATION OF QUALIFICATIONS - FRESH ADVERTISEMENT - VALIDITY OF SELECTION - U. P. HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICE COMMISSION REGULATIONS - LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY STATUTES - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

A bunch of petitions challenging the selection of teachers by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission on the basis of an advertisement issued in 1986, after the relaxation of qualifications in 1988. The petitioners argued that fresh advertisement should have been issued after the relaxation of qualifications.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the selection of teachers on the basis of the 1986 advertisement, after the relaxation of qualifications in 1988, was invalid. The court directed the Commission to issue fresh advertisement and hold fresh interview taking into consideration the applications of those who had already applied in pursuance of 1986 advertisement.

Issues: 1. Whether selection of teachers should be made on the basis of advertisement issued some three years ago or on the basis of qualifications for the posts statutorily amended relaxing certain essential qualifications, few months prior to issuance of interview letters? 2. Whether a fresh advertisement should have been issued or interview in respect of vacancies which existed then should have been on the basis of qualifications as it existed then?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the case of Dr. V. R. Pal v. State of J. and K., 1984 (1) SCC 160, where the Supreme Court held that minimum eligibility required by the advertisement inviting applications should be the basis of selection. 2. The court also relied on the case of Smt. Swaran Lata v. Union of India, 1979 (3) SCC 165, where the Supreme Court held that no relaxation in the qualifications can be made when advertisement has duly been issued inviting applications and persons possessing the qualifications advertised, as prescribed by the rules, are available and have submitted their applications.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the advertisement dated 2-8-1986, and directed the opposite parties to issue fresh advertisement and hold fresh interview taking into consideration the applications of those who had already applied in pursuance of 1986 advertisement.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the Court-The main point for consideration in this bunch of petitions is as to whether selection of teachers is to be made on the basis of advertisement issued some three years ago or on the basis of qualifications for the posts statutorily amended relaxing certain essential qualifications, few months prior to issuance of interview letters. The supplementary questions arising out of the same are as to whether a fresh advertisement should have been issued or interview in respect of vacancies which existed then should have been on the basis of qualifications as it existed then. In this bunch of petitions it is to be noticed that the Education Commission has adopted even unconstitutional and contradictory process of selection. In some cases on the basis of same advertisement, interview took place while in some of the cases interview took place on the basis of changed and relaxed qualifications.

2. For the post of appointment of Lecturers in the associated colleges or degree colleges regulations were framed by the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission. The State Government issued a notification dated 12-10-88, amending the first statutes of the Lucknow University. Clause 11, 13 (1) and 11.13 (3) of the said Statutes provide, minimum qualification for the post of Lecturer. By the said notification essential qualifications as mentioned above namely Ph. D. and M. Phil. were dropped. In some of the cases advertisement was issued earlier and selection took place on the basis of advertisement, while in some cases fresh advertisement was issued after amendment of statutes referred to above and that is why it has been challenged by means of this writ petition.

The advertisement in question was issued before the said amendment but selection took place after the amendment came into force. It is not, the amended qualifications which enlarge the field of eligibility but it is the unamended qualifications, on the basis of which the advertisement was issued and on the basis of which selection shall be made. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Dr. V. R. Pal v. State of J. and K., 1984 (1) SCC 160. In the said case the minimum qualifications as required in the advertisement inviting the applications for admission in M.D. course was given. But subsequently the qualifications were ' changed with the result that the doctor who approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court failed to satisfy the Government Order regarding which no reference was made in the advertisement even though it was in existence. The court held that minimum eligibility required by the advertisement inviting applications should be the basis of selection. The reasoning given in the said case fully apply in this case. In the case of Smt. Swaran Lata v. Union of India, 1979 (3) SCC 165, it was held that no relaxation in the qualifications can be made when advertisement has duly been issued inviting applications and persons possessing the qualifications advertised, as prescribed by the rules, are available and have submitted their applications.

3. It is always possible to the State Government to change qualifications or relax qualifications, but whenever qualifications are changed and interview is taken and appointments on its basis are made, obviously fresh applications on the basis of changed qualifications can be invited and then appointments should be made. The qualifications mentioned in advertisement cannot be changed at the tims of selection, but the same can be made at the time of issuing advertisement which would enable all eligible persons to apply for the same.

4. The main question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether in pursuance of an advertisement issued in the year 1986, selection by way of interview, in the year 1989, on the basis of amended qualifications as laid down in advertisement was valid or invalid. THE relaxation in qualification was made in the year 1988 and even then process of selection did not progres








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
whatsapp-icon Back to top