Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
BHUPINDERPAL SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/2000
BENCH:
S.R.Babu, R.C.Lahoti
JUDGMENT:
R.C. Lahoti, J.
This common judgment shall govern the disposal of C.A.
No.6750/1999, C.A. No. 6751/1999, C.A. No. 6752/1999,
C.A. No. 6753/1999 & C.W.P. No.356/1999 filed in this
Court.
Vide advertisement dated 12.1.1996, the Departmental
Selection Committee (Teaching), Education Department, Punjab
invited applications for appointment of 3025 teachers. The
relevant part of the notification is extracted and
reproduced hereunder :- xx xx xx
1. Applications on prescribed form given below are
invited for various categories of teachers. Applications
must be reached on or before dated 15.02.1996.
xx xx xx xx
Sr.No. 1. Masters/Mistresses (S.S. & Allied)
Total number of posts : 3025
Pay Scale : 1640-2925
Subject Subject Code Number of posts i) Social Studies
0201 3000 ii) Fine Arts 0203 10 iii) Music 0204 10 iv) Home
Science 0205 05 Total 3025
__________________________________
Educational Qualification :
i) For Social Studies Masters/Mistresses : B.A./B.Ed.
with the combination of two subjects out of the following
seven subjects History Economics Political Science
Geography Public Administration Psychology Sociology
with relevant teaching subject in B.Ed.
ii) For Fine Arts Masters/Mistresses : B.A. in Fine
Arts with B.Ed.
iii) For Music : B.A. in Music with B.Ed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
iv) For Home Science : B.A./B.Sc. Home Science with
B.Ed. (Applicant must have relevant teaching subject in
B.Ed.)
xx xx xx xx
Note :- 1) All the applicants must have passed Punjabi
at the level of Matriculation.
2) For all categories of teachers the minimum age is
18 years and maximum limit of age is 36 years on the dt.
01.01.96. Age concession will be admissible under rules to
the reserved classes.
On 7th October, 1996 a corrigendum was issued whereby
the upper age limit was increased to 42 years as on
1.1.1996. The corrigendum read as under :- In the
advertisement for selection of School Master/Mistresses
published on 12.01.96 and for ETT/JBT teachers on 08.01.96,
upper age limit has been increased upto 42 years as on
01.01.96. Those candidates who could not apply earlier due
to overage may now apply. Application complete in all
respects as per advertisements dated 12.01.96 and 8.1.96,
must reach before 30.10.96 at the following office with
requisite fee.
A large number of applications were filed. It appears
that some of the applicants did not fulfill the requisite
educational eligibility qualifications on the date of making
of the applications and not even on 15.2.1996 i.e. the last
date for making applications appointed by the advertisement
dated 12.1.1996. However, the fact remains and has not been
disputed during the course of hearing before this Court that
by 30.10.1996, the last date for making the applications, as
appointed by the corrigendum dated 7.10.1996, they had all
acquired the requisite educational eligibility
qualifications. There may be a case or two where the
applicants had acquired the requisite educational
eligibility qualification on the date of interview. The
fact remains that the applications filed by all such
applicants were scrutinised, found in order and entertained
as validly filed applications. Call letters were issued.
The appellants before us, who had also approached the High
Court by filing several writ petitions, were all selected.
Some were allowed to join and given posting orders. There
are others who were not allowed to join pursuant to letters
of appointment and were not given posting orders by the
District level officers on the ground that they were not
qualified for appointment on the last date appointed for
making applications i.e. 15.2.1996.
On 17.3.1997 the Director of Public Instructions
issued a memo to all Circle Education Officers to the
following effect :- Government have decided that the
candidates who have acquired requisite qualification at the
time of interview and have been selected by the Selection
Committee be issued P.P.Os immediately. Accordingly, you
are hereby directed that all such candidates who have been
issued appointment letters be issued P.P.Os. immediately
and intimation be sent to the undersigned.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
While above controversy was going on, there was
another development. Two candidates, Rajesh Kumar &
Paramjit Singh, had filed a writ petition registered as
C.W.P. 7159/1997 wherein they had laid challenge to the
process of selection on the ground that ineligible persons
were selected while the two petitioners who were eligible
and more meritorious than some of the persons selected, were
not so selected and their names did not figure in the list
of selected candidates as released by the Director of Public
Instructions (Schools), Chandigarh on 30th December, 1996.
By its judgment dated 22.5.1997 the High Court dismissed the
petition forming an opinion that the cut off date for
determining the eligibility of the aplicants by reference to
the advertisement was 15.2.1997 and if anyone was not
educationally qualified so as to be eligible to make an
application on 15.2.97, his application could not have been
entertained. As to the corrigendum dated 7.10.96 the High
Court formed an opinion that it had the effect of extending
the cut off date by reference to which age eligibility was
to be determined but rest of the eligibility requirements
were to be judged by reference to 15.2.96. The memo dated
17.3.97 was beyond the power of the Government, in the
opinion of the High Court and could not have been issued.
The High Court thus found the petitioners before it not
entitled to any relief and directed the petition to be
dismissed.
It appears that there was yet another writ petition,
C.W.P. 7322 of 1997 laying challenge to the same
recruitment process. By an interim order dated 24.10.97
passed therein the Division Bench had directed a list to be
prepared of the candidates who did not possess the requisite
academic qualifications on the last date fixed for the
receipt of the applications and were yet selected and/or
appointed. On 18.2.98 the High Court passed a detailed
order directing the Secretary, Department of Education to
look into the matter and have an enquiry conducted into the
alleged illegalities committed by the Departmental Selection
Committee. The relevant part of the order read as under:-
Prima facie it appears that the Departmental Selection
Committee has made large scale selections of those
candidates who were not qualified up to the last date fixed
for receipt of the applications and this has been done in
blatant violation of the law declared by the Supreme Court
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Keeping in view the enormous nature of the
illegalities committed by the Departmental Selection
Committee, we direct the Financial
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Punjab,
Department of Education, to personally look into the matter
and get an enquiry conducted about the illegalities
committed by the Departmental Selection Committee. The
responsibility of officers who may have manipulated the
selection of ineligible candidates may also be fixed and, if
considered necessary, case should be registered with the
police against the guilty officials. Such an enquiry be got
conducted and finalised within two-and-a- half months.
Put up for hearing on 11.5.1998.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
An enquiry was set up pursuant to the orders of the
High Court. That enquiry has been completed on 24.12.1998.
However, the above said interim orders passed by the High
Court, have persuaded the Government to take at least two
steps. Firstly, the memo dated 17.3.97 has been
subsequently recalled. Secondly, such of the candidates
who, though selected had not joined till then, were not
allowed to join.
In this state of affairs several petitions came to be
filed before the High Court. C.W.P. 2830/98, 4633/98,
5657/98, 12495/98, 7322/97 & 13005/98 have been filed by the
petitioners mostly selected but not permitted to join. Some
of them are such candidates who have been selected and have
also been joined but whose appointments are proposed to be
terminated by the State Government in view of the interim
orders passed by the High Court. All these petitions have
been directed to be dismissed. C.W.P. 2513/98 was filed by
a petitioner who complained that she was denied the
opportunity of joining in the process of recruitment having
been considered to be ineligible though one of the
respondents in the petition filed by her was considered and
selected. Another similar petition registered as CWP
18992/97 was filed by a candidate who was not called for
interview having been considered to be ineligible. These
petitions have also been dismissed holding the petitioners
therein not entitled to any relief in view of their own
ineligibility. The petitioners in C.W.P. 2513/98 and
18992/97 have not pursued the matter further though some of
the respondents therein have come up in appeal feeling
aggrieved by their ineligibility also having been adjudged
by the judgment of the High Court though they were selected.
All these petitions having been disposed of by the
High Court by a common judgment dated 21.9.98 several
appeals referred to herein above have been filed in this
Court. C.W.P. 356/99 has been filed in this Court by four
petitioners submitting that in view of the judgment dated
21.9.98 delivered by the High Court it would be futile for
them to approach the High Court. All the petitioners were
eligible for applying for the advertised jobs by 30.10.96,
the extended date for making applications. All the four
petitioners have been selected. The petitioners no. 1, 2 &
3 were holding other Government jobs which they have
resigned in view of their having been selected as teachers.
Avtar Singh, petitioner no.1, was JBT teacher working with
the Punjab Government. He has resigned from the previous
job on 3.11.97 to join the new job. Sukhbir Singh,
petitioner no.2, was serving as Panchayat Secretary
wherefrom he has resigned consequent upon his having been
selected as a teacher. Ramakant Katara, petitioner no.3,
has also similarly resigned from a Government service to
take up the employment as a teacher. Jatinder Kaur,
appellant in CA 6752/99 has joined as teacher on 6.1.98 and
is continuing in such employment.
Sushil Kumar and Gagandeep Kaur, the appellants in
Civil Appeal No. 6753/99 have, consequent upon their
appointment, joined as teachers respectively on 15.12.97 &
14.10.97 and they are working ever since then.
All the appeals and the writ petitions have been taken
up for hearing analogously. The only question arising for
decision in this case is by reference to which date the
eligibility of the several candidates is to be judged and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
the consequences flowing from failure to satisfy the
eligibility test in the facts & circumstances of the case.
Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in
Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Chander Shekhar & Anr. JT 1997 (4)
SC 99; A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. B. Sarat
Chandra & Ors. 1990 (4) SLR 235; The Distt. Collector and
Chairman, Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School
Society) Vizianagaram and Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari
Devi 1990 (4) SLR 237; Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs.
University of Rajasthan & Ors. JT 1993 (1) SC 220; Dr.
M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1993 (2) SCC 429;
and U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad & Anr.
Vs. Alpana JT 1994 (1) SC 94, the High Court has held (i)
that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility
requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a
public employment is the date appointed by the relevant
service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by
the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose
in the advertisement calling for applications; ii) that if
there be no such date appointed then the eligibility
criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date
appointed by which the applications have to be received by
the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court
is supported by several decisions of this Court and is
therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.
However, there are certain special features of this case
which need to be taken care of and justice done by invoking
the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.
In view of several decisions of this Court relied on
by the High Court and referred to herein above, it was
expected of the State Government notifying the vacancies to
have clearly laid down and stated the cut off date by
reference to which the applicants were required to satisfy
their eligibility. This was not done. It was pointed out
on behalf of the several appellants/petitioners before this
Court that the practice prevalent in Punjab has been to
determine the eligibility by reference to the date of
interview and there are innumerable cases wherein such
candidates have been seeking employment as were not eligible
on the date of making the applications or the last date
appointed for receipt of the applications but were in the
process of acquiring eligibility qualifications and did
acquire the same by the time they were called for and
appeared at the interview. Several such persons have been
appointed but no one has challenged their appointments and
they have continued to be in public employment. Such a
loose practice, though prevalent, cannot be allowed to be
continued and must be treated to have been put to an end.
The reason is apparent. The applications made by such
candidates as were not qualified but were in the process of
acquiring eligibility qualifications would be difficult to
be scrutinised and subjected to the process of approval or
elimination and would only result in creating confusion and
uncertainty. Many would be such applicants who would be
called to face interview but shall have to be returned blank
if they failed to acquire requisite eligibility
qualifications by the time of interview. In our opinion the
authorities of the State should be tied down to the
principles governing the cut off date for testing the
eligibility qualifications on the principles deducible from
decided cases of this Court and stated herein above which
have now to be treated as the settled service jurisprudence.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
It is clear from the facts of the case that not only
the applicants, thousands in number, but the authorities too
were also belabouring under an identical wrong impression.
That is why the applications were entertained and the
applicants called for interview though not eligible by
reference to the last date for receipt of applications. The
selection process is complete. Even the appointment letters
have been issued. The controversy arose because several
officers of the Education Department at the District level
refused to join the selected candidates in spite of their
being armed with appointment letters. Admittedly with a
stray exception of one or two, all the applicants have
acquired the requisite eligibility qualifications by
30.10.96, the extended date for making applications. From
the corrigendum dated 17.10.96 it cannot be clearly spelled
out that though the age requirement was to be determined by
reference to 30.10.96, other eligibility requirements, i.e.
those relating to education, were to be tested by reference
to 15.2.96 and not 30.10.96. At least the corrigendum did
not specifically say so. There are no malafides alleged.
It has not been the case of anyone aggrieved and certainly
not a finding arrived at by the High Court that satisfaction
of eligibility requirement by reference to the last date of
making of the applications was not rigorously insisted on by
the authorities of Education Department or the Selection
Board for the purpose of accommodating or obliging any
favoured candidate or candidates. The enquiry set up
pursuant to the orders of the High Court has also not
brought out any finding enabling such an inference being
drawn. The action on the part of the Selection Board and
the authorities of the Education Department, though mistaken
and unsustainable in law, was bonafide and a result of loose
practice prevalent till then which has been discontinued
now. In our opinion it would cause grave injustice to the
several appellants before us if their selection and
appointment were struck down and they were now asked to seek
employment elsewhere. Most of them, if not all, must have
crossed the upper age limit for seeking public employment
and the ghost of unemployment is likely to chase them for
the rest of their lives. It is not the case of the State
Government that the entry of the several appellants before
us as teachers in the Education Department, would be a
disservice or cause any discontentment in the services or
any other problem.
A copy of the report dated 24.12.1998 which is an
outcome of the enquiry held in compliance with the order of
the High Court dated 18th February, 1998 in CWP 7322/97 has
been placed on the record of CWP 356/99. According to the
Report there were 1015 candidates who were ineligible though
selected. The break-up is as under:-
1. Candidates not fulfilling prescribed
qualifications by 15.2.1996 (due date) 939
2. Candidates whose subject combination was not
appropriate 75
3. Candidates who have not passed Punjabi 15
4. Candidates possessing degrees from un-recognised
Universities 13
5. Candidates whose diploma was not from recognised
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
Institution 1
6. No. of candidates having more than one type of
ineligibility 28 ------ 1015 ------
(Note : Figures and total as given in the report)
It is also stated in the enquiry report that total
number of candidates issued appointment letters and joined
was 305 while total number of candidates issued appointment
letters but not joined was 277. There were another 433
candidates who, though selected, were not issued appointment
letters.
It was conceded during the course of hearing that
candidates belonging to category-1 had acquired the
requisite eligibility qualifications by the extended date.
As to category-3 it was conceded that the candidates had
given Punjabi examination before the cut off date and though
the results were not declared but their answer books were
evaluated before 30.10.1996 and the results were formally
declared after the cut off date and they had passed the
requisite examination in Punjabi. The appellants and the
petitioners before us are either in category-1 or in
category-3. In our opinion in view of the appointment
letters having been issued, the selection and appointment of
such candidates should not be disturbed and that order we
make under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete
justice in the facts and circumstances of the cases before
us as already stated.
For the foregoing reasons all the appeals are allowed.
The judgment of the High Court, to the extent of which it
has dismissed the writ petitions filed by such petitioners
who were the selected candidates, is set aside. CWP 356/99
filed in this Court is also allowed. It is directed that
such of the selected candidates as have already been issued
appointment letters shall forthwith be issued posting orders
at the earliest, say within a maximum period of two months
from the date of this order. Those who have already been
posted shall continue with their appointments. The appeals
and the writ petition are disposed of accordingly. No order
as to the costs.