Mohammad Arsad Azim and Another vs The Secretary of U.P.P.C.L. and Another

V.K. Shukla, J.—In the present case, petitioners have rushed to this Court with request to cancel the result of final selection of Advertisement No.2 of Electricity Service Commission for the post of Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer.

Petitioners'' contention is that they have got to their credit certificate in Electronic Trade. Petitioners submit that Advertisement No.2 has been issued for appointment on the post of Technician Grade-2, and therein eligibility criteria, which has so been fixed is that the incumbent should have to his/her credit the certificate in Electrician Trade and not the Electronic Trade, as such the petitioners request that entire selection is liable to be quashed.

Apex Court in the case of P.M. Latha and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , has taken the view that fixation of qualification for particular post is matter of recruitment policy. Relevant extract of the said judgment is being quoted below:

We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed qualification is a higher qualification then TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to complete for the post. On behalf of the applicants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teacher''s Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary B.Ed degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teaches as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible.

Apex Court again in the case of Yogesh Kumar and Others Vs. Government of NTC, Delhi and Others, has taken the view that it is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment clearly mentions that fixation of qualification is discretion of recruiting authority as recruiting authority knows the sources from which recruitment is to be made. Relevant paragraph-8 of the aforesaid judgement is being quoted below:

This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals [CA No. 1726-28 of 2001] arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the natures of training imparted for grant of certificate and degree are totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible. In our view, the division bench of the Delhi High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were rightly excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers. We make it clear that we are not called upon to express any opinion on any B.Ed. candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements in the past and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was under challenge before the High Court and in this appeal.

Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Manjul Vs. The Chairman, UPSC and Others, has taken the view that it is the statutory authority alone which is entitled to frame Rules as well as the qualification and Courts have no authority to prescribe qualification or to supplant or supplement the same. Relevant paragraphs 23 to 26 of the said judgment is being extracted below.

The aforementioned contention of the Fourth Respondent herein has specifically been denied and disputed. It has been contended that recruitment rules of the Deputy Superintending Archaeologist are different from the Superintending Archaeologist. Whereas in the case of the former, two years'' research experience in various subjects including Epigraphy was considered to be sufficient, in the case of latter, what was necessary was field experience of five years in Archaeology and knowledge of monuments and antiquities.

The statutory authority is entitled to frame statutory rules laying down terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned who can take ultimate decision therefore.

The jurisdiction of the superior courts, it is a trite law, would be to interpret the rule and not to supplant or supplement the same.

It is well settled that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post.

In the present case also once expert body has resolved not to include the incumbents with Electronic Trade in the list of the incumbents with Electrician Trade, then this Court cannot accede to the request of the petitioners.

Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed.