ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR versus CHANDER SHEKHER AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 768 · Decided: 18-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. A 
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR . 
v. 
CHANDER SHEKHER AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 18, 1992 
B 
[DR. T.K. THOMMEN, V. RAMASWAMI AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Selection and appointment of Junior Engineers-Eligible 
qualification-Result declared after the last date of submission of application, 
.but before IntervieW-Selection ·of such c.andidates on the basis of marks 
C obtained in that examination and Intervie~Validity of-Selection not made 
by Public Service Commission-Rule 37 of J. & K Public Service Commission 
Ru/es-Applicability of. 
Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission Business Rules: Rule 
D 37-Eligib/e qualification-Entertaining applications provisionally while 
results of such examination awaited-Selection by agencies other than Public 
Service Commission-Analogous application-Pennissibility of. 
In response to an advertisement inviting applications for appoint-
ment to the post of Junior Engineer, the appellants and respondents 
E 
submitted their applications. The eligibility qualification prescribed for 
the said post was B.E. (Civil). At the tinie of application, the appellants 
were awaiting the results of B.E. (Civil) Examination. The results were 
published subsequently and the appellants were successful. Thereafter 
intel"Views for the post of Junior Engineer commenced. The appellants 
F 
were selected and appointed as Junior Engineers. They were placed senior 
to the respondents by reason of their merits. 
·• 
The respondents filed Writ Petitions before the High Court contend-
ing that since the appellants were not qualified to apply for the said post 
on the date of submission of applications as their results had not been 
G declared by that date, they were not qualified to appear for the interview, 
and as such their applications should have been rejected. The Writ Peti-
tions were dismissed by a Single Judge, who observed that the challenge 
was belated and the selection of the appellants who had obtained higher 
marks and who had been fully qualified prior to the dates of interview 
H made the whole selection process broad based. 
768 
ASHOK SHARMA v. CHANDER SHEKHER 
769 
On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the judgment of the Single A 
Judge and held that the appellants were wrongly selected. Being ag· 
grieved by this judgment, the appellants preferred the present appeals. 
The appeallants contended that on the dates of interview, they 
were eligible for being called for interview; and that since they fulfilled. 
all the necessary qualifications for being interviewed and on the basis B 
of the results announced and the marks obtained by them, their selection 
was rightly made. It was also contended that though the selection was 
not made by the Public Service Commission, Rule 37 of its Business 
Rules made selections broad.;f>ased, so that the best talents available for 
recruitment were not rejected merely because the results of the e:xamina• C 
tion were delayed until after the last date prescribed for submission of 
applications, but were announced before the dates of interview. 
The respondents contended that Rule 37 of Public Service Com· 
mission Business Rules was not applicable since the selection was not 
made by Public Service Commission; and that the advertisement did not D 
state that the candidates whose results had not been announced would 
be allowed to appear for the interview provisionally, as required by the 
said Rule 37. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: Per Thommen, J.: (For himself and V. Ramaswami, J.) 
E 
1. It is true Rule 37 of the J & K Public S~nice Commission 
Business Rules is in terms applicable only to Pub.lie Service Commission 
Candidates and due notice of provisional entertainment of their applica· F 
tion, subject to their passing the examination before the date of inter· 
view, is a requirement peculiar to Rule 37 and is not applicable to the 
present case. If the principle of Rule 37 is by analogy applicabl~, the 
fact the notice of provisional entertainment of applications, subject to 
passing of the examination before the date of interview, is a requirement G 
in the interests of candidates who fell within that category. The appel· 
la!lts are by analogy persons of that category. [777-B,C] 
2. The appellants did pass the examination and were fully qualified 
for being selected prior to the date of interview. By allowing the appel· 
lants to appear for the interview and by their selection on the basis of H 
• 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [

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