Kailash Kumari vs State of Jammu & Kashmir

In response to Advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1991 dated 29051991 issued by the J&K State Subordinate Services Recruitment Board, 143

posts of School Teachers in the grade of Rs. 9001830, District Cadre Posts in Udhampur District were advertised and out of these about 36 posts

for Block Gool were required to be filled. The petitioners in response to the aid Notice have applied for the appointment as Teachers in Block

Gool in Udhampur District. The respondents having undertaken the exercise of assessment of the comparative merit of the candidates, who had

applied and also having interviewed the eligible candidates, 36 candidates including two women candidates for Block Gool of District Udhampur

and the said candidates were selected by the respondentState. The list of the candidates, who have been selected for the post of Teachers are

female as well as Males as per Annexure 'PM' annexed to this petition. The persons of the petitioners have joined the issue and asked for writ of

certiorari for quashing of the selection list made by the respondents 1 to 4 in favour of respondents 5 to 40 and a writ of mandamus directing the

respondents 1 to 4 to select and appoint the petitioners as Teachers in the Education Department. The grounds taken by the petitioners in the

petition are that the selection is to be made strictly in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Advertisement Notice and the rules and

regulations as existed at the time of advertisement. The Advertisement Notice dated 29051991 clearly provides that a candidate seeking

consideration for the post of Teacher must possess academic qualification ""Matric and above', preference being given to trained candidates;

Mathematics and Science knowing candidates and those who know both Hindi and Urdu scripts. It is projected by the petitioners that they fulfilled

all the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the Advertisement Notice and rules and regulations existing at the time of issue of advertisement notice.

But it is submitted that the respondents have changed the criterion subsequently and considered only those candidates who possessed Higher

Secondary Part II (12th class) qualification and excluded those who were matriculates and PUC pass. It is also submitted that the petitioners were

interviewed by the interviewing committee and they changed the conditions of qualification after the interviews were conducted. It is argued that the

said course is not permissible in law and the selection and consequent appointments of respondents 5 to 40 are liable to be quashed. It is further

pleaded that neither the Advertisement Notice nor the rules existing at that time has made any provision for changing the qualification conditions or

any other conditions subsequent to the Advertisement Notice, so any change made by the respondents 1 to 4 with the eligibility conditions is to the

prejudice of the petitioners and others.

It is further pleaded that the respondents 1 to 4 have made the selection/appointment on the basis of sex and submitted that the respondents 1 to

4 have reserved 34 posts for males and only two posts for females in the Block Gool. All the other area have been excluded and discriminated on

the basis of sex.

The selection made by the respondents 1 to 4 is against the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and any selection made on that

basis is liable to be quashed.

It is also projected that the selection of respondents 39 and 40, namely, two female candidates is bad and illegal, on the account that the

petitioners were more meritorious in this behalf. It is projected that the Advertisement notice did merit a condition that preference should be given

to those candidates, who know Hindi and Urdu scripts both, but petitioners 1 and 2 know Hindi and Urdu scripts both and have special

qualification in the subject. The respondentBoard has not considered this preferential qualification, so the selection of respondents 5 to 40 is bad

and is to be quahsed.

The constitution of the Committee for selection/interview was not properly constituted. That the Selection Board did not make any norms for

selection of suitable candidates. That the entire selection has been made on the basis of interview and was only an eyewash. The selection made on

that basis is liable to be quahsed. The selection Board has not taken into consideration the seniority of the candidates in view of their qualification

and so on.

The contention raised by the petitioners have been denied by the respondents 1 to 4 by filing their objections and the matter is being considered

at the admission stage in its entirety.

The objections filed by the State are also supported by an affidavit. The respondents 1 to 4 have stated that the petitioners have no right to

maintain the petition, because none of the air fundamental right have been violated. The petitioners had the only right of consideration, which have

been accorded to them and availed of by the petitioners. The petitioners could not be selected because of the less merit achieved by them to that

of respondents 5 to 40 and other selected candidates. The respondents 5 to 40, who were appointed were more meritorious, better qualifed and

they secured more merit in the process of selection and accordingly they were selected and appointed. It is submitted that the criteria adopted by

the Board was that they allotted, and fixed 60 points to be determined in relation to the %age of marks and for Additional qualification 20 points

were fixed and this procedure has been uniformly applied to all the candidates. There has been no discrimination or arbitrariness in applying the

criteria. The Notice clearly says that the matric and above is the eligibility qualification. So in case of person, who is more qualified beyond

matriculation is not to be rejected out rightly by the Board on that count that only matriculates are required to compete. It is further submitted that

the criteria is not the Statutory criteria, but is as per the requirement of the candidates. Whatever the criteria has been adopted is in the best interest

of the students community. The criteria has not been changed after the interview or at any stage, but the procedure to be followed was definitely

decided before the interview was taken. The qualification/eligibility condition for the post of Teacher prior to the change of the criteria was Matric

and above and after the change of the criteria is also the same. No violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been committed

by the Board in selecting the candidates. The males and females both have been selected and considered. The selection of respondents 39 and 40

are in no way illegal or bad in law. The candidates have been considered according to their testimonials and preference also. The preferences does

not mean selection. There were many other candidates possessing the same subject and deserve to be preferred according to their merit.

The Selection Committee was duly constituted in accordance with the provisons of the J&K State Subordinate Service Recruitment Board Act.

The interview has been conducted by all the members of the Selection Committee. The Constitution of the Committee was not defective in any

way and the selection and appointments do not deserve to be quashed. The entire selection is not based on interview alone, which is evident from

the criteria and very norms, which have been adopted in the selection process and the higher qualification has also been given weight age. Every

candidate was interviewed by the Selection Committee and proper time was also given for assessing their general knowledge and suitability. The

allegations levelled is only a figment of imagination. The interview was not a farce or an eyewah. The allegations of unfairness, discrimination are

denied totally. The selection made by the Board does not violate any fundamental, statutory or legal rights of the petitioners and does not infringe

the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition required to be dismissed outrightly.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings and counterpleadings of the parties and also the Notification

inviting applications for the selection of the posts of teachers. It may be noted here that the Notification clearly shows and lays down the conditions

that all the prescribed qualifications are minimum and mere possession of the same does not entitle the candidates to be called for interview, where

the number of applications to the advertisement is much and it will not be convenient or possible for the Board to interview all the candidates, the

Board may restrict the number of candidates for interview to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualification and experience higher than the minimum

prescribed in the Advertisement Notice and on the relative merit of the candidates in the qualifying examination and by holding the screening test.

So this being the general condition laid down in Advertisement Notice itself besides other conditions enumerated therein as regards the District

Cadre post of Teachers in Udhampur District, Matric and above as prescribed as the qualification, preference being given to the trained

candidates, Math/Science knowing candidates and those who know both Hindi/Urdu scripts.

Obviously, when 60 points were provided for Matriculation on the basis of percentage of marks obtained, so a person, who is only

matriculate, his percentage of marks are to be converted into 60 points for the basic merit, then for an additional qualification the candidate wins 20

points more and for interview 20 points are in the hands of the Interview Board to be awarded to the candidates at the time of Interview, though

the Selection Board has called all the candidates, who were interviewed even the petitioners do not deny that fact that they have been called, but

have not fared well in awarding of their merit, obviously they dont come in the selection zone, they had the right of consideration and they have

been considered. The Board was competent not to call the persons of the petitioners for interview, because there was a right reserved by the

Board as per the Advertisement Notice, but that was not done, though there were large number of candidates, who were highly qualified,

therefore, there was no necessity to call the candidates with lower basic qualification. Even then Matriculates or candidates having some additional

qualification as also claimed by the petitioners have been called, considered, interviewed and comparative merit list having been framed. The

persons of the petitioners have been found not to be selected.

It may be noticed that as per observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1984 SC 873, Para 8 at page 879, which suggests that this

Court is not sitting in appeal against the selection made, because it has been time and again laid down that the process of selection and the

interviews conducted and merit considered is the business of the experts in the field and the court is not to substitute its opinion to such process,

but court has only to see that whether the right of consideration has been duly accorded to the candidates, who had applied to the process of the

selection or not. The candidates who had applied for selection including the persons of the petitioners have been called for interview and have been

duly considered, but obviously they are not found meritorious as compared to the respondents 5 to 40, who are admittedly Graduates, Science

Graduates and 3rd Year Degree students. The persons of the petitioners are matriculate and have got some preference in Urdu and Hindi

qualifications and obviously the persons, who are Graduates, Science Graduates, were found more meritorious and thus find a place in the select

list and consequently were appointed. The respondents 39 and 40 both though girls belong to the very block, namely Gool, now is resident of

Village Dalwah, Gool and another resident of Village Chaklass, Gool. Both the girls are T.D.C. qualified and one of the girl belongs to the

Scheduled Tribe category. By issuing the orders of selection for male and female does not mean that the selection has been done on the basis of

sex as projected by the petitioners, so while giving a full consideration to the submission made, I do not find that the petitioners have any case to

agitate that the right of consideration has been denied to them. They have been considered and found not meritorious as compared to the

respondents 5 to 40, so the petition is being dismissed at the very stage of admission along with connected CMP No. 18/95.