Kumari Neeta Tewari and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

S.K. Phaujdar, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by two Petitioners Km. Neeta Tewari and Km. Bharti Pande challenging an order of the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, (Respondent No. 2) refusing to call these two Petitioners for an interview towards selection of candidates for appointment as lecturers in Sanskrit. These two ladies have qualifications of M. A. in Sanskrit with B. Ed. and Ph. D. with experience of four years of teaching. They had obtained 71.1% and 69% marks respectively in M. A. examination.

An advertisement was published by the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (in short Commission) for appointment of lecturers in different subjects including Sanskrit. A copy of this advertisement is in Annexure No. 20 to the writ petition. The essential qualification as indicated in the advertisement was post-graduate degree in the subject from any recognised University and the preferential qualification was L. T. Diploma from any Government or recognised institute or a Bachelor of Education degree from any recognised University. Page 2 of the advertisement gave certain important directions. Under direction 7, it was staled that the essential qualification indicated in the advertisement was the minimum and a candidate could not claim an interview simply for having this minimum qualification. If the Commission was not in a position to call each and every applicant for interview, then the Commission may keep in consideration the academic records, the percentage of the marks as a basis for interview. The general rule was to call four candidates against one available vacancy. Admittedly, in the general category there were 13 vacancies for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit and it is not disputed that 53 candidates were called for interview.

When the writ petition was presented Hon''ble S. Rafat Alam, J, recorded an interim order on 9.9.96 that the Commission would permit the Petitioners to appear in the interview for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit, but the result would not be published and the result would be subject to the decision of the writ petition.

The Petitioners asserted that they had outstanding academic career and all the qualifications indicated in the advertisement and had to their credit Ph.D degrees and teaching experience as well. It was staled in the writ petition that the Petitioners had responded to the advertisement spoken of above. They were given control numbers indicating that they fell within the zone of consideration for being called for interview. The Commission, however, did not call them for any interview. But they were informed through other sources that other candidates had already been called for an interview. On query from the office of the Commission, the Petitioners could know that the Commission had fixed a cut-off percentage of marks in the M. A. examination for shortlisting the number of the candidates to be called for interview. The Petitioners expressed their grievance that the mere achievements in the M. A. examination without looking to the consistent good result in the earlier examinations was not a proper approach of the Commission to shortlist candidates for interview. The Commission had acted arbitrarily in this matter. Accordingly, the Petitioners made a prayer for a direction upon the Commission to call both the Petitioners in an interview for the posts of lecturer in Sanskrit. They also prayed that certain plus points be added giving them weightage on account of teaching experience and Ph. D. Degrees.

The Petitioners submitted a supplementary affidavit to bring on record the guidelines for the working of the Commission. These guidelines are contained in Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. The Petitioners also indicated, through this supplementary affidavit, the marks obtained by the other candidates called for interview who were selected by the Commission. This Annexure No. 2 gives the details of the percentage of the marks obtained by these candidates in examinations from the High School stage to the Post-Graduate stage, which also indicated if they did or did not possess L. T. or B Ed. Degree and Ph. D. Degree and teaching experience.

A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents through a Section Officer of the Commission. It was indicated in the counter-affidavit that interview call letters were sent only to those candidates who were eligible and had come within the criteria laid down by the Commission in terms of the Service Rules and Government orders, The two Petitioners had not reached the criteria level laid down by the Commission which was 72.88 per cent marks in the Post-Graduate examination and as such they were not called for interview. It was stated that the Commission was an independent body and it had every right to prepare a uniform formula for selection of better candidate for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit. It was further indicated that in term of the interim order of the High Court, the Petitioners were permitted to appear in an interview for the posts in question.

The Respondents came up with a supplementary counter-affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition and in the supplementary affidavit of the Petitioners. It was stated that the candidates called for interview had possessed the minimum requisite qualifications and when the shortlisting was made, the guidelines were followed. A copy of the guidelines was annexed to this supplementary counter-affidavit and this is the same as was relied upon by the Petitioners. With this counter-affidavit the Respondents also annexed the U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer''s Cadre) Service Rules, 1992.

A rejoinder-affidavit was filed by the Petitioner to meet the points raised in the counter-affidavit of the state.

The facts that go unchallenged are that the two Petitioners had been L. T. grade teachers in Sanskrit for four years on that date of their applications. They had to their credit an M. A. Degree in Sanskrit with B. Ed. and Ph. D Degrees. The first Petitioner obtained 61.8%, 56.4%, 64.6% and 71.1% marks in the High School, Intermediate, B. A. and M. A. examinations respectively. The second Petitioner obtained in these examinations 69%, 66%, 66% and 69% marks respectably. There was no wrong indicated in the procedure of their making an application. Number of candidates for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit was many and as such the Commission had to shortlist candidates for interview. The Commission had fixed a cut-off percentage of 72.88 in the M. A. examination for calling candidates for interview but the persons selected as per Annexure No. 2, the supplementary affidavit of the Petitioners, at least five persons in the first thirteen had obtained less than the cut-off percentage in M. A. examination and at least two of these persons selected in these first thirteen who had obtained more than that cut-off percentage did not possess B. Ed. Degrees.

The advertisement calling for applications for the posts had already been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. In short, it can be stated that for the desired post, M. A. in Sanskrit was the requisite qualification while the preferential qualification was B. Ed. or L. T. There was indication of the Ph. D. Degree as a preferential qualification. The important instructions annexed to the advertisement indicated that if candidates were large in number, the Commission had the power to make a shortlisting for interview on the basis of the academic records, percentage of marks and higher qualifications. The Commission pleaded that it was within its right to have fixed a cut-off percentage of marks for shortlisting candidates for interview.

In this respect, the guidelines for the Commission and the rules annexed to the supplementary counter-affidavit are most relevant. The guidelines are precisely for the purpose of shortlisting and other important processes of selection. Under Clause 2 of these guidelines, directions have been given for preliminary inquiry on the applications when selection is to be made on the basis of interview alone. In the case at our hands, the selection was to be made on interview alone, subject to the requisite minimum and preferential qualifications. There was no written examination scheduled for the selection. Sub-clause (ja) requires that the basic policy behind shortlisting was that the best candidate be chosen by all means. It indicated that in cases where according to advertisement, requisite qualifications and preferential qualifications were both indicated, shortlisting for interview should be made, firstly, for such applicants who possessed both the minimum requisite and the preferential qualifications. If the number of such candidates were large, then persons not having the preferential qualification should not be called for interview.

The Rules in Annexure No. 2 to the supplementary counter-affidavit, namely, the U.P. Special Subordinate Educational (Lecturer''s Cadre) Service Rules, 1992, in Part III thereof, speak of recruitment. Rule 8 requires that a candidate for direct recruitment to the various categories of posts in the service must possess the qualifications against each post in the Appendix "B". Rule 9 requires that a candidate who has the preferential qualification in respect of a post mentioned in Rule 8 shall, other things being equal, be given preference in the matter of direct recruitment. Appendix "B" speaks out what are the essential qualifications for the post of lecturer in Sanskrit and what are the preferential qualifications and the advertisement in question was at par with Appendix "B".

From what has been discussed, it appears that under rules, followed by the advertisement, the two Petitioners possessed the essential qualifications, i.e., the minimum requisite qualification as also the preferential qualifications. The rules required that other things remaining equal, the person having preferential qualification should have been preferred and the guidelines also directed that if persons were having both the essential and preferential qualifications, they would be given priority for interview rather than the persons having only the requisite or essential qualifications.

Materials have come to show that cut-off percentage for calling for interview was fixed arbitrarily without any reference to the preferential qualification and thus there was a violation of the guidelines set up by the Commission itself. The candidates were interviewed who did not possess even the cut-off percentage of marks in M. A. examination.

Looking from the above angle and giving weight on the guidelines fixed by the Commission, it must be stated that the Petitioners were wrongly refused an interview. It is, however, fortunate that they had been interviewed upon an interim direction of this High Court. The Petitioners have further claimed that extra points be given to them in interview for having Ph. D. Degree and teaching experience. The guidelines are silent on this point but the guidelines indicate, and the important instructions in the advertisement also indicate, that higher qualification could also be a criterion for consideration. The Petitioners have already been interviewed, the results have been withheld. The Commission is directed to assess the case of the Petitioners keeping in view the total academic records and further achievements by way of B. Ed., Ph. D. and teaching experience and to make a selection comparing the cases of the Petitioners as against those of others and to give preference only to the best candidates as was directed in the guidelines.

The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions the Commission is to arrive at a decision within a month from the date of communication of this order to them.