Rewa Khajuria vs State of J&K and Others

R.C. Gandhi, Judge.

This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of an order dated 18.5.1999 passed in SWP No: 1185/98 whereby the learned Single Judge has

dismissed the writ petition observing that the petitioner being not possessed of the B.Ed, qualification on the last date of submission of applications,

was not entitled to seek consideration for the post of teacher in Jammu district as a B.Ed, qualified candidate.

The appellant applied for the post of teacher in Jammu district against Advertisement No: 3 of 1996. She was possessed of B.Sc. qualification and

at that relevant time had appeared in the B.Ed, examination. The petitioner was considered and not selected. Her grievance before the writ court

was that since she was possessed of B.Ed, qualification, same has not been considered by the selection authority though she had mentioned in the

application form about the said fact that she had appeared in B.Ed, examination and the result was also declared on 12081997 before the

declaration of the select list. The last date for submission of applications in the notification was 31011997 which was extended upto 10081997.

Appellant, admittedly on the last date of submission of application forms to seek consideration for the post of teacher, was not possessed of the

B.Ed, qualification and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition.

The controversy as to whether the candidate should possess the qualification on the last date of submission of application, prescribed in the

advertisement/notification, on the date of interview or till selection is declared, has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in case U.P. Public

Service Commission Vs. Ms. Alpana (1994 (2) SLR 59) wherein on identical facts, it was held

.....The facts of this case reveal that the respondent was not qualified to apply since the last date fixed for receipt of applications was August 20,

1988. No rule or practice is shown to have existed which permitted entertainment of her application. The Public Service Commission was,

therefore, right in refusing to call her for interview. The High Court in Writ petition No: 1898/91 mandated the Public Service Commission to

interview her but directed to withhold the result until further orders. In obedience to the directive of the High Court the Public Service Commission

interviewed her but her result was kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the High Court while disposing of the matter finally directed the Public Service

Commission to declare her result and, if successful, to forward her name for appointment. The High Court even went to the length of ordering the

creation of a supernumeriacy post to accommodate her. This approach of the High Court cannot be supported on any rule or prevalent practice

nor can it be supported on equitable considerations. In fact there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere with the refusal of the Public

Service Commission to interview her in the absence of any specific rule in that behalf. We find it difficult to give recognition to such an approach of

the High Court as that would open up a flood of litigation. Many candidates superior to the respondent in merit may not have applied as the result

of the examination was not declared before the last date for receipt of applications. If once such an approach is recognised there would be several

applications received from such candidates not eligible to apply and that would not only increase avoidable work of the selecting authorities but

would also increase the pressure on such authorities to withhold interviews till the results are declared, thereby causing avoidable administrative

difficulties. This would also leave vacancies unfilled for long spells of time. We, therefore, find it difficult to uphold the view of the High Court

impugned in this appeal.

Another judgment of the Apex Court delivered in case State of Rajasthan V. Hitendra Kumar Bhat (AIR 1998 S.C. 91) applies on all fours to

the facts of the present case. In that case the last date for submission of application forms was 29061992. The respondent therein did not possess

the requisite technical qualification on the said date though he had appeared in the B.Ed. examination but his result was declared on 06081992.

The interview for the advertised posts were held from 01091992 and onwards. The respondent was not called for interview on the ground that he

did not possess the requisite technical qualification. His writ petition was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court holding that the cut off date for

ascertaining the eligibility of the respondent under the said advertisement was the last date prescribed for submission of the application form i.e.

29061992. The appeal preferred by the respondent therein was allowed by the Division Bench of the said High Court. The Supreme Court with

regard to this proposition as to whether the technical qualification can be considered in such circumstances, held:

Looking to the clear terms of the advertisement which we have referred to above, the respondent was not eligible for consideration. It is submitted

by the respondent before us that since he has been continued and has now been confirmed we should not disturb his appointment. He has

requested that his case should be considered sympathetically. The fact, however, remains that the appellants have taken the correct stand right

from the beginning. The respondent's application was considered and he was not called for an interview. It was on account of interim orders which

were obtained by the respondent that he was given appointment and continued. He was aware that his appointment was subject to the outcome of

his petition. One cannot, therefore, take to sympathetic a view of the situation in which the respondent finds himself. A cutoff date by which all the

requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have

applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite

qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of one individual may, therefore, cause injustice to others.

For the aforesaid reasons and settled proposition of law, the appellant could not make out any case warranting intereference with the order

under appeal. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.