Yasmeen Hakim and Others vs State

Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, J.—313 posts of teachers for District Baramulla falling within District cadre were notified by the State Service

Selection Recruitment Board vide advertisement notice 1 of 1999 dated 9.3.2001. The qualification required for the post was 10+2 with 50%

marks and above. The notification prescribed that 50% marks will, not apply to graduates and above and that experience was to be given

preference. The notification further provided that the prescribed qualifications were minimum and mere possession of the same will not entitle a

candidate to be called for interview and that in the event of the number of candidates for the post being large, the board shall restrict the number of

candidates to be admitted in oral or written test in terms of Sub-clause (ii) of rule 13 of SRO 194 of 1992. The advertisement notice also provided

that qualifications required should be as on last date of receipt of application. Initially the last date for receipt of the applications was 31.3.1999 but

subsequently it was extended upto 15.4.1999.

The petitioners were graduates at the time of the said notification, accordingly applied for the posts. With the passage of time they acquired

higher qualifications like Masters degree in Arts/Science, degree of Bachelor in Education. They have not been called for interview. They are

aggrieved of the same and have through the medium of the present writ petition raised the following question for consideration which according to

them is of general public importance.

Whether Service Selection Recruitment Board is bound to take into consideration additional qualification of Bachelors Degree in Education

(B.E.d) or Masters Degree in Arts (M.A.) or Masters Degree in science (M.Sc.) acquired by a candidate subsequent to the advertisement notice

but before the date of interview for appointment to the post of teacher, moreso when the candidates on the basis of such additional qualifications

qualify for interview under the criteria of short listing?

The petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing decision of the Board contained in Interview Notification dated 13.6.2001, to the

effect that the additional qualification certificates obtained by any candidate after advertisement notice will not be entertained.

Respondents have in their reply stated that the petitioners have acquired higher qualifications subsequent to the cut off date for submission of

application forms and before the date of interview for selection to the post as such qualifications cannot be considered for the purpose of interview

or selection/appointment to the post. They further state that in pursuance to the notification large number of applications were received and the

Board has called 965 candidates in the open merit category as per 1:5, 315 in R.B.A. category, 155 candidates in S.T. Category, 50 candidates in

A.L.C. category, 50 candidates in H.C. category and 30 in O.B.C category respectively. The short listing has been made by the Board on the

merits secured by the candidates in their qualifying examination on the criteria fixed by the Board. Heard. I have considered the matter.

Mr. Z.A. Shah, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioners has referred to the question framed by the petitioner in para 2 of the petition

and submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in not calling the candidates including the petitioners for interview, who had acquired

higher qualifications after the cut off date fixed for submission of the applications. Mr., Shah also referred to Rule 13 of the Rules framed under

SRO 194 of 1992 called as the Jammu & Kashmir Subordinate Service Recruit Rules 1992 to show that the Board has not properly fixed the

criteria as due to it the candidates having higher qualifications got excluded from the process of selection. He has referred to various averments in

the petition to show that an anomalous situation has been created as the petitioners having higher qualification have been left out and have not even

been called for interview while as the candidates having lesser qualifications were called for interviewed and have also been selected.

On consideration of the matter I do not find any merit in the pleas raised.

The question raised by the petitioners in para 2 of their petition which has been reproduced above is no more res-integra as the Apex Court has

in a catena of authorities laid down that the qualification required for the purpose of selection and appointment should be as on the last date of

filling up the forms and any qualification acquired after the cut off date cannot be considered while making the selection. It is now well settled law

that the last date for acquiring essential qualification for any recruitment is the last date of receipt of application. Suitability and eligibility has to be

considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications. Reliance in this behalf may be made to Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India

(UOI) and Others, , Mills Douglas Michael and others Vs. Union of India and others, and State of Haryana and Others Vs. Anurag Srivastava and

Another, .

Though this was the main plea raised by the petitioners in the present petition around which their whole case rests, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner has during the course of arguments referred to various averments made in the reply of the respondents to show that the respondents have

not properly applied the short listing criteria and have wrongly excluded the petitioners from the process of selection.

I do not find any force in the submissions. It is now well settled that it is open to the appointing authority to lay down the criteria for

selection/recruitment to Government Service as this pertains to the domain of policy. It is not the province of the court to entrench into such matters

unless it is found that the criteria is not in accordance with the rules and advertisement notice or is unreasonable or suffers from extraneous

consideration. It is always open to the authority to screen candidates due for consideration at the threshold of the process of selection by

prescribing a criteria so that the field of selection can be narrowed down with the ultimate objective of selecting eligible and suitable candidates.

Respondents have in para 3 (h) of their reply given the criteria as under:

""that in terms of Rule 13 (9)(ii) of SRO of 1992 (i.e. Jammu (X Kashmir, Sub-ordinate Services Recruitment Rules of 1992) the Board

adopted the short listing criteria in the ratio of 1:5 after doing screening of the qualifications of the eligible candidates on the following criteria.

Weightage to basic qualification .... 40 Points.

Weightage to graduation (1st Divn.) .... 10 Points.

(IInd division) .... 6 points.

(IIIrd division) .... 4 points.

Weightage to post graduation

(1st division) .... 10 Points.

(II division) .... 6 points.

(IIIrd division) .... 4 points.

Weightage to B.Ed. .... 10 points.

Weightage to M.Ed. .... 10 Points.

_________

Total 80 Points

Interview 20 Points

It is submitted that the Board has called 965 candidates in the open merit category, as per 1:5,315 in R.B.A. category, 155 category, 155

candidates in S. T. category, 50 candidates in A.L.C. category, 50 candidates in H.C. category and 30 in O.B.C. category respectively. The short

listing has been made by the Board on the merits secured by the candidates in their qualifying examination on the criteria herein above referred. A

total number of 5001 candidates had applied in O.M. category and on the basis of criteria adopted, herein above, the last candidate obtained

29.33. points therefore, all other candidates having obtained less than 29.33. points, were short listed. As it was not practicable for the Board to

notify the list of the candidates who were found eligible under the short listing criteria adopted by the Board and it was thought just and proper to

make reference of the percentage of marks, a candidate should possess from the basic qualification in the ratio of points obtained as per the short

listing criteria. More specifically demonstrating the application of short listing criteria, the following examples are submitted before this Hon'ble

Court:

I) For example;

The last cut off point i.e. 29.33 points obtained by a candidate in the short listing criteria is equivalent to 73.32 percentage of marks in 10 plus 2

examination as in the following manner:

a) Basic academic qualification

(10 Plus 2) 40 Points

i.e. 40/100 x73.32 is equal to 29.33. Points

b) For graduation 1st Division 48.32% and above marks in 10 plus 2 in the following manner;

Basic Qualification:

40/100 x 48.32 is equal to 19.32 points

(1st division Graduation) 10 points

Total 29.32 points

C) For IInd division graduation

58.32% and above made in 10 plus 2.

i.e. 40/100 x48.32 is equal to 23.32 points

d) Third division graduation

63.32 and above marks in 10 plus 2

i.e. 40/100 x 48.32 is equal to 25.33 points

Total 29.33 points

It is submitted that the same procedure has been followed in Post Graduation (1st Division, IInd division and IIIrd Division) respectively as also

graduation with B.Ed. Post Graduation with B. Ed. And Post Graduation with M.Ed. The method of criteria adopted by the Board for short listing

as explained above is rational and reasonable as by adopting this method, only meritorious candidates have been called interview leaving no scope

open for the less or merit candidates and the petitioners on the strength of their qualification at the time of submission of application forms i.e. last

date of submission of application form have secured much lessor merit that the requisite out off merit; therefore, in this view of the matter, the

criteria is nether, arbitrary, irrational nor unreasonable, as alleged by the petitioner.

In the present case the selection authority has specifically kept provisions for short listing in the advertisement notice. It provided that the

prescribed qualifications are minimum and mere possession of the same does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview and that in the event

of the number of candidates for post being large, the board shall restrict the number of candidates to be admitted to oral or written test in terms of

Sub-clause ii of rule 13 of SRO 194 of 1992. Rule 13 of the said SRO also contains provisions for short listing. It provides:

Procedure of selection by the Recruitment Board: The Board shall make selection to the various posts in the following manner;

I. The board shall on receipt of the reference of vacancies advertised the posts communicating copies of the advertisement to the respective

employment exchange, government gazette, press and other publicity media so as to achieve wide publicity.

II. Ordinarily the board shall restrict, the number of applications to be admitted to oral or written test to a maximum of 5 times the number of

vacancies after doing the preliminary screening on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and such other criteria as the Board

may deem fit.

III. The Board shall allot the requisite number of candidates in order of merit and reservation as referred by appointing authority. The Board shall

not maintain any select list for any or future vacancies.

IV. The general Administration department may prescribe such pro-forma as are required for reference of vacancies to the Board and for

communicating the select list from time to time.

Selection authority had, therefore, the powers to do preliminary screening on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and such

other criteria as the Board may deem fit.

On consideration of the criteria I find the same is based on qualifying examination and due weightage has been given to the basic qualification,

graduation, post graduation, B.Ed. and M.Ed., as such I could not find any unreasonableness or illegality in the criteria, adopted. The procedure

adopted by the Board was, therefore, proper and in accordance with the rules.

In the circumstances I do not find any ground in the petition. Dismissed.