BIBHUDATTA MOHANTY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 20-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BIBHUDATIA MOHANTY 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 20, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. V ARIA VA, JJ.] 
B 
... 
Service law : 
Recruitment-Preference clause for higher qualifications-Effect of- c 
Temporary appointment-Subsequently requisition sent to Employment 
Exchange for regular appointment-Requisition specijj;ing Vlfl standard 
qualificatio1>-No specification that matriculates will be given preference-
Selection of appellant on merit-Seniority in age also taken into account-
Challenge by respondent-Ground that inspite of his higher qualification he 
was not given preference-Held, not maintainable-Order setting aside D 
appointment of appellant held not maintainable. 
The appellant was temporarily appointed as Extra Departmental Mail . 
Carrier by respondent No. 4. For filling up the post on permanent basis, a 
requisition was sent to employment exchange to sponsor candidates having 
qualification of VIIl standard passed. The said requisition did not specify that E 
matriculates would be given preference. The names of appellant and 
respondent No. 5 did not figure in the list sponsored by employment exchange. 
They approached High Court and Administrative Tribunal respectively which 
issued direction to consider their cases. The appellant was selected on merit 
and respondent No. 5 challenged his appointment before Tribunal on the F 
ground that inspite of being a SSC passed candidate no preference was given 
to him. In its counter affidavit respondents averred that the appellant was 
selected on merit and he was senior in age. Ignoring the said averment the 
Tribunal set aside the appointment taking the view that he was solely selected 
..... 
on the ground that amongst all the candidates he was senior-most in age and 
that was an extraneous consideration. The High Court agreed with the G 
" 
reasoning of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition and the review 
petition by appellant 
-
In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalfofthe appellant that 
his selection was on the basis of merit and not merely on the ground of age; 
613 
H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A he fulfilled the requirement of residence; the requisition sent by respondent 
-
No. 5 to the Employment Exchange did not specify that matriculates would 
be given preference, therefore, the Tribunal and the High Court erred in 
setting aside his appointment. 
B 
Allowing the appeals)md setting aside the impugned orders, the Court 
HELD: 1. The selection of the appellant was wrongly set aside. The 
preference clause for higher qualification does not mean that irrespective of 
fulfillment of other norms SSC passed have to be preferred. Where any rule 
~-
or guideline provide preference in respect of some higher qualification, it only 
c means that all other requirements being equal, a person possessing higher 
• 
educational qualification will be preferred. It cannot, however, be considered 
i.. 
as the sole criteria for preference in selection and appointment. 
[619-B; 618-C] 
D 
2. It is true that the guidelines contained in "Method of Recruitment" 
mentions that the minimum educational qualification is VIII passed and 
preference will be given to SSC passed. But the requisition sent to Employment 
Exchange did not specify that preference would be given to SSC passed 
candidates. Therefore, respondent No.· 5 could not have claimed any 
preferential treatment in selection. As the basis of selection was in terms of 
E requisition to the Employment Exchange, the selection authority has 
committed no illegality in not giving preference to SSC passed candidate--
respondent No. 5. [618-A-B] 
3. The Tribunal is not right in ignoring the averment in the counter 
affidavit• of the official respondents that the appellant was selected on merit 
-
F and erred in holding that the selection was made solely on the ground that 
amongst all the candidates he was the seniormost in the agt:. A selection solely 
on the basis of being senior in age is vitiated by extraneous consideration. 
But when, as in this case, the selection is on the basis of merit, merely because 
the seniority in age of the candidate is also taken into consideration, it would 
G not be right to invalidate the selection. [618-G-H; 619-A] 
... 
A 
4. In so far as the selection of respondent No. 5 is concerned that is a 
consequential action and it cannot stand as the impugned order of setting aside 
.... 
the sel~ction and the appointment of the appellan

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