Union of India (UOI) vs B. Sivaprakasam, G.S. Senthilkumar and Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench

The Tribunal has, in effect, rewritten the recruitment rules, which it is not empowered to do. The qualification for the post of E.D. Delivery

Agents as set out in the relevant instructions governing the recruitment reads thus:-

The minimum educational qualification of Extra Departmental Delivery Agents, Extra Departmental. Stamp Vendors and other categories of

E.D.D.As should be 8th Standard. Preference may be given to the candidates with Matriculation qualification. No weightage should be given for

any qualification higher than Matriculation.

The Tribunal has faulted the administration for having given weightage to a matriculate. Its reasoning in its own words at paragraph 6 of the

order reads thus:-

It is to be seen from the notification itself marked as Annexure A-1 that the minimum requirement of educational qualification for EDA is 8th

standard. This Tribunal has held in catena of decisions that the required standard of educational qualification is 8th standard. In case preference is

to be given to the other candidates who are better qualified the very purpose of giving chance to candidates having 8 th standard qualification will

be loosing their chance for being considered. Therefore in this case as seen from the tabular form filed as annexure R-1, almost all the candidates

are SSLC passed candidates except the candidate at S.No.2 K.Jayaraman who has failed SSLC. The proceedings of the respondents which are

marked as Annexure R-2 clearly goes to show that they have not considered this aspect of the minimum qualification as 8th standard and they have

taken the other educational qualification of the candidates in respect of other things which is not permissible. Therefore, the entire selection process

suffers from the nonfollowing of the rules of having the necessary qualification as 8th standard.

This reasoning of the Tribunal is wholly fallacious. When a minimum qualification is prescribed along with a further stipulation that a person

possessing a qualification higher than the minimum would be preferred, if other things are equal, the authorities engaged in making the selection

would be fully justified in giving preference to a person possessing additional qualification. It is not for the Tribunal to direct the authority not to give

weightage to the additional qualification when the possession of such additional qualification is relevant and would enable the employer to choose a

person who would be more suited for discharging the duties attached to the post by reason of possessing the higher educational qualification.

Here, having regard to the nature of the duties attached to the post, the preference accorded for the higher qualification is only Matriculation,

which is practically the minimum in most employments. If that is the minimum qualification for employment under the State Government the

selection of a person possessing matriculation qualification, is in no way unreasonable or arbitrary nor has it resulted in denial of any right to any

other person.

As noticed by the Tribunal in this very case almost all the applicants for the post were matriculates, except one who had studied upto

matriculation but had not completed it. This itself would show that there are sufficient persons who possess matriculation qualification and had

offered themselves for being considered for the post for which the applications had been invited. A direction practically compelling the employer to

prefer a person who has failed matriculation, ignoring others who have passed matriculation is, on the face of it, totally unjustified.

The reference made by the Tribunal to a `catena of decisions'' are merely orders which the Tribunal itself had passed in earlier cases. Merely

passing orders one after the other does not add any value to it unless the very first order is intrinsically sound. We must also observe here that there

are numerous writ petitions filed in this Court against such orders made by the Tribunal.

The impugned order of the Tribunal setting aside the selection process on the ground that only a person who had passed 8th standard and had

not passed Matriculation examination should be considered is, therefore, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The W.M.P is closed.