LexDISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN VIZIANAGARAM (SOCIAL WELFARE RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL SOCIETY) VIZIANAGARAM AND ANR. versus M. TRIPURA SUNDARI DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRM.t\N VIZIANAGARAM (SOCIAL WELFARE'. RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL SOCIETY) VIZIANAGARAM AND ANrR. v. M. TRIPURA SUNDARI DEVI APRIL 20, 1990 [KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] Constitution of India 1950: Article 16-Public services-Recruit- ment to-Qualifications mentioned in advertisement-Not relaxable unless clearly specified in the advertisement. B c Civil Services: A.P. Government-Appointment of Grade I and Grade II Teachers-Appointment made in disregard of qualifications --!"' mentioned in advertisement-Illegal. -~ Pursuant to a newspaper advertisement by the State Government D calling for applications for Grade-I and Grade-II teacher posts (Post Graduate Teacher and Trained Graduate Teachers) the respondent in the appeal applied for the same. The qualification prescribed in .the advertisement was a second class degree in M.A. However, the respondent who held a third class E degree in M.A. was selected, and an order was issued appointing her as a Post Graduate Teacher in Hindi, subject to the production of original certificates, and compliance with the other necessary formalities. When the respondent approached the authorities with her certificates, it was noticed that she was not qualified for the post, and was, therefore, not allowed to join service. F The respondent approached the State Administrative Tribunal for relief, which held that the appellants had· issued the order of appointment knowing fully well that she was not qnalified, and that she was selected for appointment because there was no other candidate available with better marks, and passed an Order directing the appel- G !ants to allow the respondent to join duty and pay her salary from the date she reported for duty. I ->---- The appellants appealed to this Court. Allowing the appeal, HELD: 1. When an advertisement mentions a partirular qnalifi- H 559 A B 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R. cation and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee con- cerned. The aggrieved are all those who bad similar or even better qualifications than the apj>Ointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. [S62Fi - 2. It -amount to a fraud on the public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications unless it is clearly stated in the advertisement that the qualifications are relaxable. [562G] 3. No Court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudu- lent practice. The State Administrative Tribunal lost sight of this fact in C the instant case. [562G] 4. It is common knowledge that sometimes either by mistake or otherwise the notes put up before the Selection Committee contain erroneous data prepared by the office and sometimes the Selection D Committee proceeds on the basis that all those who appear before it, are otherwise qualified. However, the second sta~e at which the documents are scrutinised is when the higher authorities go through them at the time the candidate concerned approaches them for resuming duties alongwith the original certificates. It is at that stage that the mistake in the instant case was discovered, and the respondent was not permitted E to resume her duties. There is nothing wrong in such action. [562B-C) [The Court felt it would be unjust to deprive the respondent of the post at this stage, as she had subsequently acquired another degree in M.A. with second class and thereby qualified herself to be appointed, that she may be overaged for the post and many who were under- F 11ualified were appointed to the post earlier, and directed that she be appointed in the post from the beginning of the academic year 1990- 1991.] [563B-C) G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2559 of 1988 From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.1987 of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in R.P. No. 3931of1987. K. Madhva Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Appellants. H Y.P. Rao for the Respondent. - ---·- .,,...,. --------- ' ?'· DISTI. COLLECTOR v. M. TRIPURA (SAWANT, J.] 561 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAW ANT, J. The admitted facts in the present case are that the respondent applied for Grade-I and Grade-II teacher posts (Post Graduate Teacher and Trained Graduate Teacher posts respectively) in September, 1985 pursuant to a newspaper's advertisement calli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.