LexDUDDILLA SRINIVASA SHARMA AND ORS. versus V. CHRYSOLITE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 421 DUDDILLA SRINIVASA SHARMA AND ORS. v. V. CHRYSOLITE (Civil Appeal No. 10492 of 2013) NOVEMBER 21, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: A B Recruitment - Candidates shortlisted by fixing higher c qualification - Held: A person who fulfils the eligibility conditions as per the recruitment rules cannot be excluded even from appearing in the qualifying written examination by fixing higher educational qualification bench mark - Further, when there is a particular provision for short listing the 0 candidates in the Rules or Instructions, the short listing is to be resorted to in accordance with the criterion mentioned in those Rules or Instructions - In the instant case, a specific criterion for shortlisting was prescribed, which was not followed - High Court rightly quashed the selection - However, the E appellants continuing by virtue of interim orders, shall continue till selections are made and shall be allowed to participate in the selection process - Those of the appellants who get so selected, shall retain their seniority from the date of the initial appointment - Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial SeNice Rules, 2003 - r. 8 - Circular dated 1. 7. 1996. F In the process of recruitment to 17 posts of Junior Assistants in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, the bench mark for short-listing the candidates was raised as degree qualification instead of the G intermediate which was the statutory qualification for the post in question and had been prescribed in the Notification inviting applications. The High Court in a writ petition quashed the selection. 421 H 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A person who fulfils the eligibility conditions as per the recruitment rules cannot be excluded even from appearing in the qualifying written 8 examination by fixing higher educational qualification bench mark. That would be permissible where the post is to be filled by main written examination (with marks obtained therein to be included in the total marks) followed by viva-voice test OR where the post is to be C filled by interview mode alone. [para 17] [433-E-G] 1.2 When a particular criterion for short listing is adopted, the validity thereof is to be examined keeping in view whether the same is rational and having nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. It would depend D on the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether a particular criterion is valid or not. At the same time, it also becomes clear that whenever there is a particular provision for short listing the candidates in the Rules or Instructions, then the short listing is to be E resorted to in accordance with the criterion mentioned in those Rules or Instructions. [para 12] [429-D-F] S.B.Mathur & Ors. vs. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & Ors. 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 772 = (1989) Supp.(1) sec 34; F Union of India v. S. Vinod Kumar; 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 142 =1996 (6) SCC 580; Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Balo}i Badhavath; 2009 (5) SCR 688 = 2009 (5) sec 1- referred to. 1.3 In the instant case, the candidates who applied G were to appear in the qualifying examination and Circular Instruction dated 1.7.1996 issued by the High Court administration very categorically provided for the procedure of short listing of candidates as well. Two things which emerge from the record, germane to the H decision in this case, are as: (i) As per Rule 8 of A.P. DUDDILLA SRINIVASA SHARMA AND ORS. v. V. 423 CHRYSOLITE Judicial Ministerial Services Rules 2003, read with A Annexure I thereto the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant is intermediate examination conducted by A.P. State Board of intermediate examination or any equivalent examination. Thus, all those who fulfil this educational qualification B become eligible to be considered for the post; and (Ii) The selection process was to start with qualifying written examination and as per guideline 7(a) of the Instructions dated 1.7.1996 this qualifying examination was for the purpose of screening/ short listing of the applicants c whereby those who secured first class or 60 percent and above were to be preferred to others. Therefore, a specific criteria for shortlisting prescribed is the marks obtained in qualifying examination. Thus, having regard to the specific provision of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.