ASHISH KUMAR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 695 · Decided: 31-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
695
ASHISH KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 170-171 of 2018 )
JANUARY 31,  2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Service Law:
Appointment – Denial – Propriety of – Advertisement for
appointment to the post of ‘Psychologist’ – After written examination
appellant (candidate) was declared successful – At the time of
verification of his documents, he was told that he was not eligible
for appointment as he did not possess training qualification i.e.
L.T./B.T.B.Ed. alongwith graduation with Psychology – Writ Petition
by appellant – Dismissed by Single Judge of High Court – Order
further confirmed in Special appeal and also in Review petition –
On appeal, held: Advertisement cannot be read to mean providing
for graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T.B.Ed.– A harmonious
reading may mean that a person graduate in Psychology or L.T./
B.T.B.Ed. with Psychology is eligible – Service Rules provide that
Post Graduation in Psychology is qualification for the post and
B.Ed’s is only preferential qualification – Any part of advertisement
which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the
statutory prescription – Appellant being a post-graduate in
Psychology fulfills the qualification and hence entitled to be
appointed on the post of Psychologist – Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan
Aur Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamavali, 1991.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The advertisement cannot be read to mean
providing for graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T. B.Ed. 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 graduation with Psychology and
training certification i.e. L.T./B.T. B.Ed. have also to be with
695
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 695
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
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.[Paras 14, 15] [703-D-F]
2. In advertisement, with regard to various qualifications,
words “;k” (or) “lkFk” (with), “vFkok”(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.  The Appointing Authority used word ‘with’(lkFk),
when it wanted both the qualifications together.  Wherever stroke
‘(/)’ has been used it was used, when either of the qualifications
were indicated. [Para 17] [703-G-H; 704-A-B]
3. Before the aforesaid qualifications, the words “in
Psychology 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. [Para 17]
[705-D-E]
4. Janajitiya Vikas Skikshan Aur Kermchariverg Sewa
Niyamawali (1991 Rules)clearly indicate that qualification for
Psychologist is M.A. in Psychology. The B.Ed. is a preferential
qualification and essential qualification is only M.A. in Psychology.
The qualification prescribed in the Rules does not provide for
L.T./B.T. B.Ed. as essential qualification. Thus non-possession
of L.T./B.T. B.Ed. does not make him disqualified for the post as
per Statutory Rules of 1991. Appellant is post-graduate in
psychology and thus, also fulfills the qualification prescribed in
the 1991 Rules. When under the statutory rules appellant fulfills
the qualification; there is no occasion to deny appointment to
him. [Paras 20, 21] [706-F-G; 707-B-C]
5. 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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
697
appellant fulfills the qualification and after being selected for the
post, denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. [Para
22] [707-C-D]
Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U.P. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.