ASHISH KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NOs.170­171 OF 201  8   (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.   24387­88/2013    ) ASHISH KUMAR                …APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.   …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment of High   Court   of   judicature   at   Allahabad   (Lucknow   Bench), Lucknow, dated 04.10.2010 dismissing the Special Appeal No.446 of 2006 of the appellant as well as judgment dated 20.12.2012 dismissing   the   review   application   filed   by   the   appellant. Parties shall be referred to as referred in the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2018.01.31 17:00:13 IST Reason: The   appellant   belongs   to   other   backward   caste   who   has passed   graduation   (B.A.)   with   Psychology   and   has   also   done 2 post­graduation   in   Psychology   from   Kanpur   University. Appellant has also obtained master degree in Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations from Lucknow University in the year 1997. An advertisement dated 30.08.2001 was issued by the   Director,   Social   Welfare   Department,   U.P.,   advertising various posts under Director, Social Welfare Department and other   department   of   State.   Advertisement   also   contained recruitment for post of Psychologist (03 posts). The appellant submitted the application for the post of ‘Psychologist’. The appellant was issued admit card for appearing in the written examination. The appellant appeared in the written examination and was declared successful and included in the merit list. A letter dated 02.05.2003 was issued to the appellant asking the appellant   to   appear   along   with   original   certificates   for verification of documents. The appellant appeared along with all the documents on 12.05.2003. When appellant appeared on th 12   May,   he   was   informed   that   he   is   not   eligible   and   his appointment for the post of ‘Psychologist’ cannot be made. The appellant   submitted   a   representation   on   02.06.2003   to   the respondent. The appellant having not been given appointment; hence,   he   filed   a   writ   petition   praying   for   the   following relief: “ PRAYER 3 (I) issue a writ order or  direction   including a  writ   in   the   nature   of  mandamus   commanding   the   opposite parties to appoint  the   petitioner on the post  of   Psychologist for which  the   petitioner is fully  eligible   and   qualified as  per   advertisement   published  for   direct   recruitment   in SAMOOH 'GA'. (II) Issue a writ order or  direction   including a  writ   in   the   nature   of  mandamus   commanding   the   opposite not to appoint any  other candidature on the  post   of   Psychologist for  which   the   petitioner is  fully eligible. (III)Issue a writ order or  direction   including a  writ   in   the   nature   of  mandamus   commanding   the   opposite parties not to  harass   and victimize the petitioner   in   any  manner whatsoever. (IV) Issue such other order/orders as may deem just and proper by this Hon'ble Court   in   the   Circumstances   of   the case. (V) Award the cost of petition  in   favour of the  petitioner.” 3. In the writ petition, learned single Judge directed for filing a counter affidavit and also bringing on record the copy   of   the   Order   passed   on   the   representation   of   the appellant   dated   02.06.2003.   The   appellant   also   filed   a Contempt Application No.182 of 2004 in which Director, Social Welfare   was   directed   to   appear   in   person.   An   Order   dated 4 19.04.2004   was   passed   by   the   respondent   rejecting   the representation   of   the   appellant.   The   appellant   prayed   for amendment of the writ petition, praying for quashing the order dated 19.04.2004 which prayer was allowed to be added. Learned single Judge by its judgment dated 18.05.2006 dismissed the writ petition. Learned single Judge accepted the case taken up by the respondent in the counter affidavit that appellant is not qualified for the post since he does not have training qualification i.e. L.T./B.T.B.Ed. The appellant filed special appeal   which   too   was   dismissed.   Review   application   filed thereafter was also rejected. 4.  We   heard   Shri   Mukesh   K.   Giri,   learned   counsel   for   the appellant   and   Shri   Ajay   Kumar   Mishra,   Additional   Advocate General, appearing for the State of U.P. 5. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the appellant being graduate and post­graduate in ‘Psychology’ was fully eligible for the post of ‘Psychologist’. It is submitted that   the   advertisement   has   been   wrongly   read   by   the   High Court. Graduate in Psychology was qualified for the post and advertisement   does   not   prescribe   qualification   as   graduate with Psychology and L.T./B.T. B.Ed. He further submits that although   the   post   of   Psychologist   in   the   Social   Welfare Department was declared as dead cadre by the Government Order 5 dated   09.05.2008   but   said   posts   were   again   revised   by   the subsequent Government Order dated 17.08.2010. He submits that post of Psychologist is not a teaching post; hence, it was not necessary to have training qualification. Learned counsel has also relied on the rules namely Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991, according to which, he submits that for Psychologist, training qualification is not essential qualification and as per rule minimum qualification is M.A. in Psychology. B.Ed. is only preferable qualification. He submits that the essential work of the Psychologist was to provide   educational   counseling   to   the   students   and   other duties and was not essentially a teaching post. He submits that   the   advertisement   mentioned,   in   subject   of   Psychology Graduate or L.T./B.T. B.Ed. 6.   Shri   Ajay   Kumar   Mishra,   Additional   Advocate   General, refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant contends that respondents have rightly held the appellant not qualified.   He   submits   that   according   to   advertisement essential   qualification   is   graduate   in   Psychology   with L.T./B.T.B.Ed. He submits that Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991, hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules governed the fields.  It is, however, submitted that   although   appellant   was   called   to   appear   in   written 6 examination and interview but on discovering that he is not eligible as per the requirement of the recruitment rule, the respondent corrected the mistake on their part by not going any further with the appointment of the appellant by rejecting his candidature. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The parties are at variance with regard to correct import of the advertisement. The appellant’s case was that as per the advertisement   the   graduation   in   Psychology   was   the   minimum qualification   and   qualification   of   L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   were independent qualification on fulfilling of which candidate was qualified.   Advertisement   does   not   require   graduate   with Psychology with L.T./B.T. B.Ed. to make candidate eligible. Whereas the respondent’s case is that the candidate shall be qualified only when he is both graduate with Psychology and possesses L.T./B.T. B.Ed. The case of the respondent is that although the appellant was issued admit card and called to appear in the written and in interview but his appointment was not   issued   since   it   was   realized   that   he   does   not   have L.T./B.T. B.Ed. qualification.   In paragraph 4(Xiii) of the counter affidavit it has been reiterated that even if there is some ambiguity in the advertisement, the appointment has to be 7 made as per the recruitment rules which in this case is 1991 Rules.   It   is   useful   to   extract   following   as   stated   in paragraph 4(Xiii) of the counter affidavit: “4.(Xiii)   That   is   further   respectfully submitted that arguendo, even if it is conceded that   there   was   some   ambiguity   in   the advertisement, the petitioner herein cannot be allowed to misinterpret the same in his favour as it is trite that the appointment has to be made in accordance with the recruitment rules which   in   this   case   is   the   Janjatiya   Vikas Sikchan   Aur   Kermchariverg   Sewa   Niyamawali, 1991. It is also humbly submitted that if there was any ambiguity in the requirements mentioned in   the   advertisement,   it   has   to   be   read   in consonance with the recruitment rules. ......... .......... ......... Therefore,   keeping   the   abovesaid   settled position   of   law   in   mind,   it   is   most respectfully submitted by the respondent herein that   though   the   petitioner   herein   was inadvertently   issued   the   admit   card   for appearing in the written examination as well as called   for   the   interview,   the   respondent authorities, on discovering that the petitioner herein was not eligible as per the requirements of the recruitment rules as he did not possess the   requisite   L.T./B.T./B.Ed   as   prescribed, rightly corrected the mistake on their part by not going any further with the appointment of the   petitioner   herein   and   rejected   his candidature   as   such   an   appointment   would   be void.” 9.   Learned   single   Judge   took   the   view   that   the   appellant should have possessed the qualification of trained graduate and   since   he   does   not   possess   the   said   qualification,   his claim has rightly been rejected. It is useful to quote the 8 last portion of the judgment: ”...Accordingly   the   petitioner   should   have possessed the qualification of trained graduate and   since   he   does   not   possess   the   said qualification,   which   is   eligible   for   on   the post   of  L.T.grade   teacher,   I   am  of   the   view that the claim for appointment on the post of L.T. grade teacher, has rightly rejected. The petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.” 10.   The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   made   following observations:  ”...The educational qualification for the post in   question   is   that   the   candidate   must   be graduate with the subject of Psychology along with   other   essential   qualifications   of   being L.T./B.T./B.Ed. The condition of being B.Ed or being possessed L.T./B.T. certificates or B.Ed. degree is an essential qualification along with the   condition   of   being   graduate   with   the subject   Psychology.   If   a   candidate   is   not possessed   of   any   of   the   aforesaid   essential qualifications,   he/she   shall   not   be   eligible for   participating   in   selection   nor   can   be appointed. Under   the   relevant   rules   i.e.   Janjatiya Vikas   Sikchan   Aur   Kermchariverg   Sewa Niyamawali, 1991 of which a reference has been made   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   also   shows that   qualifications   requires   a   graduate   with the   subject   of   Psychology,   with L.T./B.T./B.Ed., as the case may be. ........ ......... ......... Be that as it may, in the advertisement in pursuance   of   which   the   appellant   had   applied the   prescribed   qualification   was   graduation with   subject   Psychology   along   with L.T./B.T./B.Ed.   degree.   That   being   so   the appellant fully knew at the time of application that   he   mus   possess   the   said   essential 9 qualifications   as   pronounced   in   the advertisement.   In   case   he   was   aggrieved   by description   of   such   qualifications,   he   could have been better advised to challenge the said advertisement event before applying but once he has   applied   in   terms   of   the   aforesaid advertisement   without   any   protest   he   cannot take a turn and say that these conditions were illegally placed in the same.” 11. The appellant has brought on record both the advertisement as well as 1991 rules. The advertisement has been filed as Annexure A­1 along with I.A.No.2 of 2013. The advertisement was issued in Hindi newspaper “Dainik Jagran” and photocopy of first page of the newspaper is also annexed at page 24 of Annexure A­1. The translated copy in   English has also been attached   at   page   6.   We   are   concerned   with   the   post   of Psychologist in the present case. Hence, it is useful to refer to the qualification prescribed for the aforesaid post. 12. The original advertisement being in vernacular Hindi, it is   relevant   to   note   the   said   content   of   vernacular advertisement which was to the following effect:

13. The English translation of the advertisement at Page 6 of 10 Annexure A­1 with regard to the post of Psychologist is as follows:

14. The careful reading of original advertisement which is in vernacular language indicate that what was prescribed was, “In Psychology   subject   graduate/L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.”.   Use   of   Stroke between graduate and L.T./B.T. B.Ed. indicates that all were alternate qualification. The advertisement cannot be read to mean providing for graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T. B.Ed. as   has   been   read   by   the   High   Court   and   contended   by   the respondent. 15.   The   words   graduate/L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   are   all   alternative qualification   which   are   prefixed   with   word   “In   subject   of Psychology”.   A   harmonious   reading   may   mean   that   a   person graduate   in   subject   of   Psychology   or   L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   with Psychology is eligible. When the post is of Psychologist, both 11 graduation   with   Psychology   and   training   certification   i.e. L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   have   also   to   be   with   Psychology.   The respondents have wrongly interpreted the advertisement to mean that the person should possess both graduate with Psychology as well as L.T./B.T. B.Ed. which on the face of it does not appear to be correct. 16. Present is a case where appellant was called to appear in written examination and interview and his name was included in the merit list. It was only at the time of verification of the certificate he was denied the appointment on the ground that he does not fulfill the qualification as advertised, whereas he fulfilled the advertised qualification. 17. There   is   one   more   reason   to   accept   the   meaning   of advertisement as noticed above. In advertisement, with regard to various qualifications, words “ " (or) “ " (with), " " यज सजथ अथवज (either)   and   stroke   ‘(/)’   have   been   used.   The   appointing authority is well aware of the meaning of stroke ‘(/)’, word “or”, “either” and “with” which has been frequently used in the qualifications which is apparent from the advertisement i.e.   Annexure     A­1.     The   Appointing   Authority   used   word 'with'( ), when it wanted both the qualifications together. सजथ Wherever stroke '(/)' has been used it was used when either of the qualifications were indicated.  The advertisement Annexure 12 A­1 contains qualifications for various posts and in several qualifications stroke (/) has been used.   A look into those qualifications clearly indicate that stroke (/) was used in the other qualifications denoting one or either qualification. It is useful to extract some qualifications where stroke (/) was used apart from qualification prescribed for the post of Psychologist.  The use of stroke (/) in the qualifications at Item No. 5 ­ Grah Mother, Item No. 6 – Karamshalal Prashikshak Foundary Shop / Black Smith Shop, Item No.11 – Sewing Trainer, Item   No.   16   –   Music   Teacher     and   Item   No.   17   –   Stitching Trainer are extracted as below:­

13

A perusal of the above qualifications clearly indicated that   stroke   (/)   was   used   regarding   qualifications,   in alternative,   i.e.,   one   or   either.     In   above   view   of   the matter, we are of the view that the use of stroke (/) between Graduate / L.T. / B.T. B.Ed. were in the same line meaning thereby one or either.  It is relevant to notice that before the   aforesaid   qualifications,   the   words   “in   Psychology 14 subject” has been used as prefix, which clearly means that all the   alternative   qualifications   were   required   to   have   with Psychology subject i.e. Graduation with Psychology/L.T./B.T. B.Ed. in the subject of Psychology.  Hence, all the three i.e. Graduation, L.T., B.T. B.Ed. has to be in Psychology subject. Those persons who have done L.T./B.T. B.Ed. with Psychology subject are eligible like person graduated with Psychology, which is the plain and simple meaning of the advertisement which has been missed by the State as well as the High Court. 18. The Division Bench in support of its view has interpreted the advertisement in the following manner:­ “.....Even otherwise, if the interpretation of the learned counsel for the appellant is taken as correct, it would mean that there will be a different   set   of   candidates   namely,   one   who possess   B.Ed.   degree   with   the   subject Psychology   and   the   others   who   are   not   B.A. with   Psychology,   but   if   they   are   B.Ed.   or possess L.T./B.T. certificates, they would be entitled for appointment.”  The above view of the Division Bench that accepting the interpretation of appellant would mean that there is different set of candidates namely one who possess B.Ed. Degree with the subject   Psychology   and   the   others   who   are   not   B.A.   with Psychology,   but   if   they   are   B.Ed.   or   possess   L.T./B.T. certificates,   they   would   be   entitled   for   appointment.   The above view does not support the interpretation, which we have 15 put on the qualifications mentioned for the Psychologist i.e. Graduate   L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   were   prefixed   with   the   “in     the subject of Psychology”.  Thus, there is no question of there being different set of candidates.  All candidates, who have Psychology as their subject of Graduation/L.T./B.T. B.Ed. were eligible     for   the   post   and   they   all   form   one   class,   i.e. those, who have studied Psychology.   Thus, the view of the High Court cannot be accepted.            19. In the counter affidavit filed in this court also the said qualifications are being read by the respondent as graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T. B.Ed. 1991 Rules have been filed as Annexure   P­1   along   with   the   rejoinder   affidavit   of   the appellant.   It   is   relevant   to   note   that   in   Schedule   to   the Rules, the post of Psychologist has been referred to at page 166; it is relevant to quote the qualification mentioned in the   Schedule   to   the   1991   Rules,   which   is   to   the   following effect:

16

20. The above rules clearly indicate that qualification for Psychologist is M.A. in Psychology. There is no other column in which Psychologist can be read in the entire rule.   The B.Ed.   is   a   preferential   qualification   and   essential qualification   is   only   M.A.   in   Psychology   according   to   1991 Rules. It is relevant to note that although learned Single Judge has referred to 1991 Rules but he observed that 1991 rules lays down the qualification as trained graduate along with L.T./B.T. B.Ed., the above observations of learned Single Judge   are   not   sustainable   in   view   of   the   qualification   as prescribed in 1991 Rules as extracted above. 21. In the counter affidavit filed in this court by the state, 1991   rules   have   been   accepted   to   be   the   relevant   rules regulating the recruitment as has been noted in the Paragraph Xiii   extracted   above.   The   qualification   prescribed   in   the 17 Rules   does   not   provide   for   L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   as   essential qualification. Thus non­possession of L.T./B.T. B.Ed. does not make him disqualified for the post as per Statutory Rules of 1991. Appellant is post­graduate in psychology and thus, also fulfill the qualification prescribed in the 1991 Rules. The respondent in counter affidavit had themselves come with the case that the appointment has to be made in accordance with the   statutory   rules.   When   under   the   statutory   rules,   1991, appellant fulfill the qualification; there is no occasion to deny appointment to him. 22. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, appellant fulfills the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is statutory rules   which   take   precedence.   In   this   context,   reference   is made in judgment of this Court in the case of   Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 Paragraph   21   of   the   judgment   lays   down   above (9)   SCC   507.   proposition which is to the following effect: "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement   issued   by   PSC   stated   that   the 18 candidates   who   were   within   the   age   on 01.07.2001   and   01.07.2002   shall   be   treated within   age   for   the   examination.   Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisements but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the   Rules   and   the   error,   if   any,   in   the advertisement   cannot   override   the   Rules   and create   a   right   in   favour   of   a   candidate   if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only of permissible   under   the   Rules   and   not   on   the basis   of   the   advertisement.   If   the interpretation   of   the   Rules   by   PSC   when   it issued   the   advertisement   was   erroneous,   no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules.” 23. It has also come on the record that although the post of Psychologist   was   declared   as   dead   cadre   by   the   Government Order   dated   09.05.2008,   but   the     posts   were   subsequently revived   by   another   Government   Order   dated   17.08.2010. Reference of 2009 Rules, namely, Uttar Pradesh Social Welfare Department of Teacher Service Rule, 2009, has been made which may have no relevance with regard to issue in the present case since   the   appointment   in   the   present   case   was   made   in pursuance   of   the   1991   Rules   and   advertisement   was   dated 30.08.2001. The appellant after being selected for the post of Psychologist   was   illegally   denied   issuance   of   appointment letter on wrong interpretation of the advertisement and the rules, hence, the appellant has made out a case for issuing a 19 direction to appoint him on the post of Psychologist.  24. We, thus, direct the respondents to issue an appointment order to the appellant in pursuance of his selection against the advertisement dated 30.08.2001 on the post of Psychologist within a period of two months from the date, copy of this Order is produced before the respondents.  25. The judgments of the High Court are set aside and the appeals are allowed accordingly. ..........................J. ( A.K. SIKRI ) ..........................J.      ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) NEW DELHI, JANUARY 31,2018.