Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4270 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10964 of 2010)
Naushad Anwar & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4271 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.12527 of 2010)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4272 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17421 of 2010)
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4273 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23850 of 2010)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4274 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.23852 of 2010)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4275 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20584 of 2010)
1
Page 1
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 10
March, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna
whereby CWJC No.17734 of 2009 filed by the appellants has
been dismissed. The short question that arises for
consideration is whether the appellants were eligible for
appointment as librarians in the schools run by the local
bodies in the State of Bihar and if so whether a mandamus
could be issued directing the respondents to announce the
result currently lying in a sealed cover. The factual backdrop
in which the question arises may be summarised as under:
JUDGMENT
3. Apart from nearly one lac posts of teachers in primary
schools, secondary schools and higher secondary schools run
by Municipal Corporation, Municipal Councils, District Boards
and Panchayats as many as 2596 vacancies of Librarians
were advertised by the Government of Bihar in terms of a
th
Notification dated 29 August, 2008. The time schedule
2
Page 2
stipulated in the notification required the selection process
th
to be completed by 24 December, 2008. The selection
process was to be undertaken by Selection Committees at
the district levels, although the composition of such
Committees and the norms and procedures governing the
selection process were not very clearly spelt out in the
notification.
4. The appellants in these appeals also applied for
appointment against posts of Librarians in response to the
above notification. Their claim for such appointments was,
however, turned down on the ground that they did not
satisfy the conditions of eligibility prescribed for such
appointments as they did not possess a Bachelor’s Degree in
JUDGMENT
Library Science from a recognised university. Aggrieved, the
appellants filed Writ Petition No.17734 of 2009 before the
High Court of Judicature at Patna which petition was
dismissed by the High Court holding that the degrees in
library science obtained by the appellants through Distance
Education were not recognised. The Distance Education
Council had, observed the High Court, in terms of its letter
3
Page 3
nd
dated 2 December, 2008 clearly stated that Alagappa
University from where the appellants had obtained the said
th
degrees was not recognised till 24 November, 2009 when
the said University was granted recognition for the first time.
The High Court was also of the view that the process of
appointment and selection stood completed by January,
2009, i.e. long before Alagappa University was recognised.
The High Court, therefore, saw no reason to permit the
appellants to compete for appointment with other
candidates. The High Court observed:
“From the aforesaid factual narration, the core
question that emerges for consideration is whether
the students, who have passed from Alagappa
University through Distance Education, can be
allowed to participate in the counselling. There is no
shadow of doubt that the Alagappa University did
not have the recognition from the distance Education
Council at the time of examination. It obtained post
facto recognition on 24.11.2009, that is, at a very
belated stage.”
JUDGMENT
5. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court
st
on 1 May, 2013, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants argued that the reason given by
the High Court for refusing relief to the appellants was
unsustainable. He submitted that the process of selection
4
Page 4
had not been completed in January, 2009 as held by the
High Court, but had continued till January, 2012. He
contended that so long as the process of selection was on,
the appellants’ claim for consideration against the vacancies
notified by the Government, could not be ignored or rejected
by the State. Reliance in support of that submission was
placed by Mr. Patwalia on certain documents filed by the
appellants to show that the selection process had not
concluded in January 2009 as observed by the High Court
but continued till as late as the year 2012. After hearing the
st
matter at some length we had by our order dated 1 May,
2013 directed the State Government to file an appropriate
affidavit answering the following queries:
JUDGMENT
“(1) What is the total number of appointments
made in each District/unit so far, whether by
the State or by the concerned authorities,
against the posts of librarian.
(2) How many of such appointments had been
th
made up to 24 December, 2008, the last date
fixed for completing the process of selections,
in terms of the advertisement notice.
(3) Under whose Orders was the date for
completion of the selection process extended
th
beyond 24 December, 2008 and in exercise of
what authority. Copies of the order under
which the date for completion of the selection
5
Page 5
process was extended shall be filed along with
affidavit.
(4) When was the last counselling/verification of
documents of the candidates, who applied for
appointment in each district, conducted.
(5) What were the norms and procedure adopted
by the concerned Selection Committees for
evaluating the inter se merits of the
candidates.
(6) In the case of candidates who had qualified
from different universities within and outside
Bihar, how was the performance of the
candidates adjudged having regard to the fact
that the academic standard for each university
may have been different.
(7) What was the composition of the Selection
Committee entrusted with the process of
selection of the candidates.
(8) How many candidates were enlisted for
appointment in each district on the basis of
inter se merits of such candidates. A copy of
the merit list for each such district be placed
on record.
(9) Does the Government of Bihar have any norms
or guidelines on the subject of recognition of
academic qualifications awarded by
universities within Bihar and those outside
Bihar?
JUDGMENT
(10) In case the State of Bihar does not have any
mechanism for recognition of such
qualifications awarded to candidates from
different universities, is there any direction,
administrative or otherwise, that relies upon or
accepts the recognition granted to such
universities by Distance Education Council,
New Delhi.
(11) Apart from Alagappa University from where the
petitioners claim to have obtained their
degree/qualification in library science, were
6
Page 6
any other candidates from other universities
not recognised on the date of the said
Notification considered for appointment by the
concerned Selection Committees. If so, on
what basis. In case there was any provisional
recognition to such universities, the copies of
such provisional recognition orders be placed
on record.
(12) Is the process of selection incomplete in any
district as on date and if so what are the
number of vacancies that remain to be filled in
such districts.
(13) Does the State propose to close or finalise the
process of selection against the vacancies that
were advertised in the year 2008. If so does it
propose to issue a fresh notification inviting
applications against the vacancies remaining
unfilled having regard to the fact that a large
number of candidates who were not eligible as
on the date of the said Notification may have
become eligible for consideration of
appointment.
(14) Is there a library in each school where the post
has been filled up or is sought to be filled up.
If there is no library in existence has the State
taken any steps and if not does the State
propose to take steps to provide a library to
the school concerned. If the answer be in the
affirmative the timeframe within which it
proposes to do so may be indicated.”
JUDGMENT
6. The respondents have pursuant to the above filed an
affidavit answering the queries. Although some of the
answers provided in the affidavit are not entirely
satisfactory, we do not consider it necessary to look for
further information in that regard as any such attempt is
7
Page 7
bound to unnecessarily delay the disposal of these appeals
further.
7. The selection process, it is common ground, was to be
conducted in terms of the Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary and
Higher Secondary Teachers (Appointment and Service
Conditions), Rules, 2006 as amended by the amendment
Rules of 2008. Rule 4(vii) (a) and (b) of said Rules as
amended stipulates the following conditions of eligibility for
appointment as a Librarian.
“4(vii) (a) Possesses Degree of Graduation with minimum
45 percent marks from any recognized
university. For the scheduled castes/scheduled
tribes/extremely backward class/backward
class and disabled, (irelaxation of five percent
would be made available in the minimum
desired marks.
(b) Degree of Graduation in Library Science given
by any university recognised by the
Department of Education, State Government.”
JUDGMENT
8. Scrutiny of the applications received by the competent
authorities appears to have revealed that several candidates
had applied for appointment on the basis of degrees in
library science obtained by Distance Education mode.
Taking note of such candidatures, Secretary, Human
8
Page 8
Resources Development of the Government of Bihar notified
that the degrees awarded by any university under the
distance learning mode will be recognised only if the same
are recognized and approved by the Distance Education
Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University. Since the
Distance Education Council had declined recognition to the
degrees awarded by Algappa University the petitioners
apprehended that they may not be considered for
appointment against the available vacancies. CWJC
No.18561 which was the first round of litigation between the
parties was, therefore, filed by the petitioners and several
others in the High Court of Judicature at Patna for a
mandamus directing the respondents to consider them for
appointment as librarian pursuant to the advertisement in
JUDGMENT
question.
9. The respondents contested the petition aforementioned
and asserted that academic qualifications awarded through
distance education from any university established under the
Act of the Parliament or institutions are deemed to be
universities under Section 3 of the University Grants
9
Page 9
Commission Act, 1956 or institutions of National importance
declared to be so under an Act of the Parliament shall stand
automatically recognised for the purposes of employment to
posts and services under the Central Government provided
such qualifications and universities are recognised by the
Distance Education Council. It was further submitted that a
notification was issued even by the Distance Education
Council informing all concerned that Distance Education
Council constituted under the Indira Gandhi national
University Act, 1985 determines standards for distance
education in the country and prescribes guidelines that are
mandatory for all institutions and that institutions ought to
obtain approval of the Distance Education Council before
commencing any degree/diploma or any such course
JUDGMENT
through distance education mode. The notification further
informed the public at large that universities and institutions
which offered a degree/diploma course through distance
mode was misleading the public if they purported to claim
that such degrees/diplomas or courses are recognised by the
University Grants Commission. Such degrees could in terms
of the notification be recognised only if the institutions had
10
Page 10
obtained approval of Distance Education Council under the
Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985. That
requirement was according to the respondents not satisfied
in the present case as the Distance Education Council had in
st
terms of its letter dated 1 December, 2008 clearly stated
that the B.L.I.S. Degree of Algappa University by distance
education mode was not recognised by the Distance
Education Council.
10. A Single Bench of the High Court of Patna before whom
CWJC No.18561 came up for consideration held that since a
degree in library science from a recognised university was
the bare minimum requirement for appointment as a
Librarian and since the degree obtained by the petitioners
JUDGMENT
before it was not recognised by the Distance Education
Council, the petitioners were not eligible for consideration or
appointment against the available vacancies on the basis of
any such qualification. The writ petition filed by the
petitioners was, accordingly, dismissed.
11. Shortly after the dismissal of the above petition came
another petition filed by Pramod Kumar and others (CWJA
11
Page 11
No.3995 of 2009 ; Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. The State of
Bihar & Ors.) in which a Single Bench of the High Court of
st
Patna passed an order on 1 April, 2009 directing the
Distance Education Council to dispose of at an early date the
prayer made by Algappa University for recognition. In CWJC
No.6235 of 2009 filed by Prem Sudha Kumar and others
another Single Bench of the High Court of Patna by an order
th
dated 18 May, 2009 directed the State not to make any
appointments based on a degree in distance education mode
not recognised by the Distance Education Council.
12. The above writ petitions were then followed by Writ
Petition No.17734 of 2009 from which the present appeals
arise in which the petitioners not only challenged the
JUDGMENT
constitutional validity of Rule 4 (vii)(a) & (b) of the Bihar
Municipality Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers
(Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 as
amended in 2008 but also prayed for a direction against the
respondents for consideration of their cases for appointment
against the post of Librarian on the basis of their degree
qualification from Algappa University, Karaikuddi, Tamil
12
Page 12
Nadu. The petitioners’ case primarily was that the Indira
th
Gandhi National Open University had by an order dated 24
November, 2009 granted ex post facto recognition to the
programme offered by distance education mode by the
Algappa University with effect from 1995 which implied that
the degrees awarded to the petitioners were recognised
qualifications making them eligible for appointment as
Librarians. Challenge to the validity of the Rules was,
however, given up by the petitioner before the High Court as
th
is evident from its order dated 7 January, 2010. The limited
question that fell for consideration before the High Court,
therefore, was whether the degrees obtained by the
petitioners from the Algappa University were recognised and
whether the petitioners could be considered for appointment
JUDGMENT
against the available vacancies on the basis of the said
qualifications. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on
the ground that Algappa University did not have the
requisite recognition from Distance Education Council “at the
time of examination” and that post facto recognition
th
belatedly granted on 24 February, 2009 did not entitle the
petitioners to the consideration or appointments prayed for.
13
Page 13
13. The short question that falls for our determination in
the above backdrop, therefore, is whether the academic
qualification acquired by the petitioners is recognized for the
purposes of appointment as Librarians against the vacancies
in question, having regard to the fact that the Distance
Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University
has granted ex post facto recognition to Algappa University
from where the petitioners have secured their degrees in
library science. The High Court has, as noticed above, taken
the view that recognition by Distance Education Council was
granted belatedly inasmuch as such recognition had come
after the conclusion of the entire selection process hence
was of no avail to the petitioners. There can indeed be no
quarrel with the abstract proposition of law that any
JUDGMENT
recognition granted after the conclusion of the selection
process cannot possibly help the candidates concerned who
ought to satisfy the conditions of eligibility according to the
relevant Rules on the date the applications are submitted
and scrutinised to determine their eligibility. The difficulty,
however, is that the relevant Rules, did not in the case at
hand stipulate whether a degree in library science obtained
14
Page 14
by Distance Education mode will constitute a recognised
qualification. All that Rule 4 (vii) (b) stipulated was that the
candidates should have a degree in library science
recognised by the Department of Education. The Department
of Education has not by itself recognised any university or
academic qualification awarded whether by regular or
Distance Education mode. It was only when candidates who
had secured degrees in Library Science by Distance
Education mode applied for appointment that the
Government issued a clarification that such degrees will be
recognised provided the University awarding the same has
been recognised by the Distance Education Council. There
was in other words considerable confusion as to what would
constitute a recognised qualification for purposes of
JUDGMENT
appointment as Librarians. Such being the case, the normal
rule that candidates must satisfy the conditions of eligibility
on the date of the applications will have to be applied
liberally so as to prevent injustice to candidates who
possessed the requisite degree qualification but such
qualification required recognition by another statutory
authority which came during the selection process but was
15
Page 15
effective from a date earlier than the date on which the
applications were made. The fact that the candidates were
in the meantime allowed to participate in the selection
process under Orders of the Court and their result kept in a
sealed cover makes it so much easier for the Court to apply
the relaxed standard for determination of the conditions of
eligibility especially when the consideration of such
candidates will in no way prejudice any other candidate
already appointed or selected for appointment.
14. We may now examine whether the selection process
had indeed been concluded before the recognition was
granted by the Distance Education Council in the instant
case. The version of the petitioners consistently has been
JUDGMENT
that the selection process was not concluded as on the date
the recognition order was passed by the Distance Education
Council and even three years thereafter till the year 2012.
Whether or not that was so, is what we intended to discover
from the answers provided by respondents to the queries
extracted in the earlier part of this order. In answer to query
no.2 the respondents have on the affidavit of Secretary to
16
Page 16
Government, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
th
stated that no appointments could be made till 24
December, 2008 the last date fixed for completing the
process of selection in terms of the advertisement notice. In
answer to query no.3 the respondents have stated that
appointment orders issued against the vacancies of Teachers
and Librarians were not issued on account of certain
allegations that forged and fabricated documents were being
used to secure such appointments and also on account of
instructions issued by the Government to the effect that
degrees obtained by some of the candidates from
universities like Hindi Vidyapeeth Deogarh were being used
for claiming appointments. The affidavit goes on to state
that in terms of instructions issued by the Government on
JUDGMENT
th
17 February, 2010 a fresh schedule for issuing appointment
letters was published stipulating different dates for
completion of the process by the Nagar Nigams, Nagar
th
Prashids, Nagar Panchayats and Zila Parishads between 25
th
February, 2010 to 8 March, 2010. Since the process could
not be completed yet another schedule was published for all
the four local bodies mentioned above asking them to
17
Page 17
conclude the selection process on different dates between
th th
10 May, 2010 to 20 May, 2010. Yet another schedule was
notified for completion of the selection process by the State
th
Government’s letter dated 11 June, 2010 asking the local
bodies concerned to complete the selection process on
th th
different dates between 5 July, 2010 to 15 July, 2010.
That was not however, the end of the matter as the
selection and appointment process could not be completed
by the local bodies which led to the publication of yet
another schedule stipulating dates for completion of the
th th
selection process between 10 August, 2010 to 13 August,
2010. As if that was also not enough, the entire selection
process was in terms of a fresh schedule to be completed on
th th
different dates between 8 July, 2011 to 12 July, 2011
JUDGMENT
followed by yet another schedule stipulated by the
th
Government in terms of its letter dated 18 October, 2011
that required the local bodies to complete the process of
th
selection of appointments on different dates between 14
th
December, 2011 to 17 December, 2011. The process of
re-scheduling the selection and appointments did not end
th
there for by another letter dated 4 January, 2012 the
18
Page 18
Government re-scheduled the selection and appointment
rd nd
process to be completed between 23 January, 2012 and 2
February, 2012. The affidavit states that no satisfactory
progress in the selection of the Librarians was made in
certain districts despite re-scheduling orders passed by the
Government with the result a final schedule for completion
of the selection process was published asking the local
bodies to complete the selection and appointment process
th th
on different dates between 15 June, 2012 to 25 June,
2012. In answer to query no.4 the Government have stated
that the last counselling/verification of the documents of the
selected candidates was undertaken pursuant to the above
final schedule.
JUDGMENT
15. We are anguished by the very thought of the selection
procedure dragging on for as long as four years between
2008 and 2012. Such inordinate delay and indolence is
totally undesirable not only because it violates the
fundamental rights of candidates who have qualified for
appointment during the intervening period but also because
it depicts a complete failure on the part of all concerned in
19
Page 19
regulating the selection and appointment process with a
view to ensuring that the same is fair, objective and
transparent. We cannot help saying that several questions
have bothered us in regard to the selection process itself
which leaves much to be desired but since there is no
challenge to the selection or the appointments made
pursuant thereto, we refrain from making any observation in
regard to those aspects. All that we need say is that the
selection and appointment of such a large number of
employees under the local bodies ought to have been
conducted in a more orderly fashion and more importantly
the same should have been completed within the time frame
stipulated for the purpose or such reasonable extension
thereof as may have become absolutely inevitable. A
JUDGMENT
selection process that lingers on for years can hardly
measure up to the demands of objectivity, fairness and
transparency especially when the method by which inter se
merit of candidates was determined is neither stipulated in
the Rules nor any guidelines issued for the Selection
Committee to follow have been placed before us. Be that as
it may, the question is whether the selection process stood
20
Page 20
completed before the Distance Education Council recognised
Algappa University from where the petitioners have obtained
their degrees. Our answer is clearly in the negative. On
their own showing, the respondents had not concluded the
selection process till as late as middle of 2012 i.e. more than
two years after the recognition order was passed by the
Distance Education Council in favour of Algappa University.
Petitioners had, in the meantime, been allowed to participate
in the interviews under the orders of this Court passed on
th th
10 May, 2010. By our order dated 14 March, 2011 we
had directed the respondents not to fill up 54 posts of
Librarians relevant to petitioners in SLP Nos.10964 and
12527 of 2010 and SLP (C) No.17421 of 2010 and two posts
to be kept vacant relevant to SLP (C) Nos. 23850 and 23852
JUDGMENT
of 2010. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have
participated in the interview under the above orders and
that requisite number of vacancies have also been reserved
for their appointment in the event of their succeeding in the
present case. It is also not in dispute that the result of the
petitioners has been kept in sealed cover awaiting the
ultimate outcome of the present appeals. In the
21
Page 21
circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the fact that
the validity of the post facto recognition granted by the
Distance Education Council to Algappa University has not
been assailed before us nor was the same under challenge
before the High Court, we see no reason why the petitioners
in these petitions should not be allowed the benefit of such
recognition which implies that they shall be treated as
eligible for consideration and appointment against the
available vacancies depending upon their inter se merit vis-
a-vis other candidates competing for the same.
16. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside the
order passed by the High Court and allow Writ Petition
17734 of 2000 with a direction to the respondents to
JUDGMENT
consider the appellants for appointment against the
available vacancies by treating them eligible for such
appointment. Depending upon their inter se merit vis-a-vis
other candidates who may be competing for the unfilled
vacancies if any out of those advertised, the respondents
shall issue the appointment orders to them if they are
otherwise found to be fit and suitable for such appointment.
22
Page 22
The needful shall be done by the respondents expeditiously
but not later than two months from the date of this order.
17. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
……………………………………….……….…..…J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
…………………………..…………………..…..…J.
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
New Delhi
April 1, 2014
JUDGMENT
23
Page 23