Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 344 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 9394 of 2019)
THE KARNATAKA STATE SEEDS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SMT. H.L. KAVERI & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment passed by
st
the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN KUMAR
Date: 2020.01.21
16:37:39 IST
Reason:
February, 2019 directing the appellantCorporation to consider the
st
claim of 1 respondent taking note of the work experience certificate
1
for appointment in accordance with law with a caveat that the order
has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
and shall not be treated as a precedent.
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell relevant for the purpose
are that the appellantCorporation invited applications for various
posts against the backlog vacancies including two vacancies of
Senior Assistant and ten vacancies of Junior Assistant pursuant to
th
an advertisement dated 11 November, 2013. Apart from the
academic and professional qualifications, the applicant was
required to furnish a certificate of work experience of 3 years/2
years in a reputed company for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior
Assistant. It was further indicated in the advertisement that
separate application has to be furnished for each post and
incomplete application shall be rejected without assigning any
st
reasons. The 1 respondent applied for both the posts, i.e. Senior
Assistant and Junior Assistant on a separate application, and
indeed was holding academic/professional qualification but it
reveals from the record that she had not enclosed the experience
2
certificate of the requisite period along with the application form
which was required at the time of submitting the application.
3. The select list of the candidates was to be prepared in terms of
Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Civil Services(Unfilled Vacancies
reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001(hereinafter
being referred to as “Rules”) based on the percentage of marks
secured by the candidate in the qualification examination taking
into consideration the reservation for women, exservicemen,
physically handicapped and project displaced persons in
accordance with the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)
Rules, 1977.
st
4. The 1 Respondent is a women and member of Scheduled
caste category and secured 65.43% of marks in the qualifying
examination and still when her name was not included in the select
list, made representation but when failed to get satisfactory
response, she approached the High Court by filing of a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In reply to the writ petition
st
filed by the Corporation, the specific case pleaded was that the 1
3
respondent had applied for both the posts of Senior
Assistant/Junior Assistant, but she failed to enclose the experience
certificate which was the condition of eligibility in terms of the
advertisement and at the stage of scrutiny, her application was
rejected without assigning any reason. For satisfaction of the Court,
the learned Single Judge of the High Court called for the original
records and recorded a finding in paragraph 7 of the judgment that
experience certificate was not enclosed by her with the application
form which is reproduced hereunder:
“On perused of the original records, it is clear
that petitioner has not enclosed experience certificate
while applying to the posts. This is evident from the
application submitted, which contains other
enclosures except the experience certificate. The
scrutiny of application that has been made and
maintained by respondentCorporation reveals that
several applications have been rejected noting the
reasons for such rejection. The reason for rejecting
the application filed by petitioner is stated as ‘non
enclosure of experience certificate’. Incidentally, it has
to be noticed that other candidates who had not
enclosed the experience certificate also suffered
similar consequences”.
5. The Single Judge of the High Court, taking note of the factual
st
statement, was not inclined to consider the claim of the 1
respondent and accordingly dismissed the writ petition vide
4
th
judgment dated 11 July, 2016 that came to be challenged by the
st
1 respondent in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of
the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court took note of
the statement of facts recorded by the learned Single Judge, but
st
taking note of the fact that the 1 respondent has secured higher
marks in the qualifying examination for the post of Senior/Junior
Assistant and mere nonenclosure of the experience certificate with
the application, should not deny her claim of fair consideration for
appointment and noticing the alleged peculiar facts allowed the LPA
with a direction to the appellantCorporation to consider the claim
st
of the 1 respondent taking note of the experience certificate for
consideration and appointment with a caveat that the order passed
by the Division Bench would not be treated as a precedent which is
a subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that experience
certificate of a reputed Company of 3 years and 2 years for the post
of Senior Assistant and Junior Assistant is a condition of eligibility
th
under the terms of advertisement dated 11 November, 2013 and
this fact remain indisputed from the original records as perused by
5
st
the Single Judge of the High Court holding that the 1 respondent
has failed to enclose experience certificate of 3 years/2 years in a
reputed Company and 31 applications of women candidates for the
post of Senior Assistant and 106 applications for Junior Assistant
of such nature which were incomplete, were rejected by the
Corporation and seven women candidates listed as valid
applications for Senior Assistant against one women category
st
remain awaited and the 1 respondent would not be entitled for any
preference over the successful candidates who were considered
eligible and placed in the select list in the order of merit for
appointment to the post of Senior/Junior Assistant prepared in
th
terms of advertisement dated 11 November, 2013.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment on which
the Division Bench has placed reliance in the case of Seema
Kumari Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
1998(9) SCC 128 is of no assistance on the facts of the present case
and in the given circumstances, the Division Bench has committed
a manifest error in directing the Corporation to take on record the
6
st
experience certificate of the 1 respondent and consider her for
appointment and that needs to be interfered by this Court.
st
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1 respondent, while
supporting judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court,
further submits that the select list was to be prepared of the
candidates based on the percentage of marks secured in the
qualifying examination and there is no other
consideration/evaluation in the process of selection for
appointment to the post of Senior/Junior Assistant under the
th
advertisement dated 11 November, 2013 and further submits that
st
to the best of her knowledge, the 1 respondent had enclosed her
experience certificate along with the application form, but even if
st
there was a deficiency in the application form filled by the 1
respondent, it was at the best be construed to be a bonafide
mistake and as she was holding the experience certificate of 3 years
even on the date when the advertisement came to be published
th
dated 11 November, 2013, she at least should not be deprived
from fair consideration for such technical reasons against a woman
who is member of Scheduled Caste category and for whom the post
7
was reserved, in the given circumstances, denial from consideration
for appointment after her suitability being adjudged has certainly
caused a great prejudice to her and this what the Division Bench
has observed and that needs no interference by this Court.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record with their assistance.
10. The appellantCorporation notified the backlog vacancies in a
th
daily newspaper vide its advertisement dated 11 November, 2013
inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the
vacancies of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant including other
posts. The academic qualification and work experience which was
required for the purpose of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant is
indicated hereunder:
“Senior Assistant :
Qualification: 1) Degree of recognized University
2) Preference to B. Com graduate with
Accountancy as a subject.
3) Computer knowledge with MS Office
and Tally or any other accounting
package.
Experience : Must have worked in a similar
capacity for three years in a reputed
company.
8
Junior Assistant :
Qualification : 1) Degree of recognized University.
2) Preference to B. Com graduate with
Accountancy as a subject.
3) Computer knowledge with MS Office
and Tally or any other accounting
package.
Experience : Must have worked in a similar
capacity for TWO years in a reputed
Company.”
th
11. Under its advertisement dated 11 November 2013, it was
specifically indicated that separate application should be submitted
for each post accompanied with various requirements including
qualification, experience, etc. and incomplete application, if any, is
st
liable for rejection without assigning any reason. The 1
respondent applied for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior
th
Assistant vide application dated 29 November, 2013. After
scrutiny of the applications, the select list of backlog vacancies was
th
published on 16 January, 2015 and it reveals from the record that
rd
impleaded 3 respondent in the writ petition (Smt. Priyanka A.
Chanchalkar) was provisionally selected as Senior Assistant
st
securing 64.65% marks. At the same time, the 1 respondent
9
st
secured 65.43% marks but since the 1 respondent failed to submit
experience certificate along with the application form, her
application at the stage of scrutiny itself was rejected.
12. The Corporation in IA No. 3457 of 2020 has indicated that
total 31 applications for the post of Senior Assistant were rejected
in view of not enclosing of selfattested documents and there are 7
women candidates listed as valid applicant for Senior Assistant
against the single post of female (Scheduled Caste) which remain
unfilled because of the orders of the Court. At the same time, the
Corporation rejected 106 number of applications for the post of
Junior Assistant for not enclosing the documents required
including selfattested copies of experience certificate/caste
certificate/computer tallycertificate/graduation certififcate/birth
certificate, etc.
13. It remains indisputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of
st
which reference has been made that the 1 respondent had not
enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and
her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect and the
10
rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the
th
advertisement dated 11 November, 2013 for which the Corporation
was not required to assign any reasons which although was
disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge
in its judgment.
14. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being
committed by the Corporation in its decision making process while
st
rejecting the application of the 1 respondent for nonfulfilment of
the necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along
with the application as required in terms of the advertisement dated
th
11 November, 2013.
15. That apart, the post of Senior Assistant which remained
vacant, as informed to this Court, even if it is considered that there
is a reasonable justification for which the certificate could not have
st
been enclosed by the 1 respondent along with the application,
there are several other candidates who have obtained higher
st
percentage in qualifying examination compared to the 1
respondent whose applications have been rejected in view of not
enclosing of selfattested documents and there are 7 women
11
candidates listed as valid applicants for the post of Senior Assistant
against the single post of women(SC) category, at least no
indefensible right in the present circumstances, could have been
st
claimed by the 1 respondent for her inclusion in the select list for
appointment to the post of Senior Assistant. At the same time, for
the post of Junior Assistant, 106 applications of the applicants were
rejected by the Corporation for nonenclosing selfattested copies
including that of the experience certificate and this fact has come
on record that out of 10 vacancies advertised, only one post for
physically handicapped remain vacant as the suitable candidate
was not available, which indeed could not be converted to
open/other reserved categories.
16. The Division Bench of the High Court has relied upon the
judgment in Seema Kumar Sharma case (supra) in extending relief
st
to the 1 respondent which, in our view, is of no assistance and, in
our view, the Division Bench has committed a manifest error by
taking note of the experience certificate to support her claim for
appointment without even indicating the post for which her claim
12
th
could be considered in terms of the advertisement dated 11
November, 2013.
st
17. We would further like to observe that merely because the 1
respondent had approached the High Court by filing of a writ
petition, that would not be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution in overreaching the rights of the
candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment.
18. The appeal is according allowed and the judgment of the High
st
Court dated 1 February, 2019 is hereby set aside. No costs.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………….…………………………………….J.
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD]
…………….…………………………………….J.
[AJAY RASTOGI]
New Delhi
January 21, 2020
13
14