SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS. versus NARINDER VERMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 08-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

j> 
SANJA Y KUMAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NARINDER VERMA AND ORS. 
MAY 8, 2006 
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Department 
(Subordinate) Service Rules, 1981-Recruitmentfor post of Junior Engineer 
(Electrical)-Eligible candidate required to possess either a Degree or 
Diploma in Electric/Electronic Engineering-Ru/es not providing for any c 
preferential treatment for either category of candidates-High Court holding 
that degree holders being higher in qualification, they could not be equated 
with Diploma holders-Correctness of-Held-Interference with selection 
process on basis of criteria which were not laid down in Rules was unjustified 
especially as there was no challenge to Rules-What executive did not think 
fit to do by prescription in Rules, could not be done by a judicial fiat. 
D 
Service Selection Recruitment Board of State conducted recruitment 
for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in accordance with Jammu 
and Kashmir Power Development Department (Subordinate) Service 
Rules, 1981. These Rules required that eligible candidate should possess 
t>ither a Degree or Diploma in Electric/Electronic Engineering, and did 
E 
not provide for any preferential treatment for either category of 
candidates. The selected candidates included Degree holders as well as 
Diploma holders. Some of the unsuccessful Degree holders challenged the 
selection list by their writ petitions. A Single Judge of High Court held 
that the writ petitioners having participated in the selection process and 
F 
failed, were estopped from challenging the criteria adopted for the 
selection. It was also held that the criteria adopted had been made 
available uniformly to all the candidates; 80 points had been given for 
~ 
educational qualifications and 20 marks had been assigned for the viva 
voce which was a proper method of selection and no objection could be 
taken thereto. However, Division Bench held that the Degree holders 
G 
being higher in qualification and that the executive while prescribing the 
eligibility qualification had not prescribed the method and procedure to 
assess the suitability and merit of the candidates possessing un-equal or 
superior qualification to that which can make the post functional. It held 
that the Degree holders cannot thus be equated with Diploma holders, 
H 
59 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
and criteria of 80 points cannot be applied uniformly to both differently 
situated. Therefore, the selection to the extent was not maintainable. 
Hence the present appeal. 
B 
c 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD : There was no challenge to the Rules in the writ petition. 
The Single Judge was therefore, justified in applying the Rules and 
upholding the selection process made by the State authorities. It was 
wholly unjustified on the part of the Division Bench to have interfered 
with the selection process on the basis of the criteria which were not laid 
down in the Rules and that too on an erroneous appreciation of the Rules. 
The High Court failed to see that the Rules made no distinction, 
whatsoever, between the Degree Holders and Diploma holders at the 
stage ofrecruitment for the purpose of minimum qualifications. In others 
words, no distinction was made between the two categories at the stage 
of recruitment, but a greater weightage was given to the Degree holders 
D 
in the post-recruitment period in the form of higher starting pay and also 
lesser number of years service requirement for qualifying for promotion 
to the higher post. (67-E-G) 
E 
University uf Cochin v. NS. Kanjoonjamrna and Ors., ( 1997] 4 SCC 
426 and Uniun uf InJia and Anr. v. N. Chandrusekhurun and Ors., (1998) 
3 sec 694. relied on. 
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Ors .. (1995) 3 SCC 721, 
distinguished. 
f 
2. There was sufficient inbuilt balance maintained between the two 
categories of candidates and the impugned judgment of the High Court 
completely throws the Rules out of balance. What the Executive did not 
think fit to do by prescription in the Rules, could not have been done by 
a judicial fiat. (67-G-H, 68-A] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5430-5434 
H 
of 2004. 
From the Judgment!Order dated 29.5.2000 of the High Court of Jam mu 
and Kashmir at Jammu/Srinagar in L.PA Nos. 18511999, 194i99, 289199. 
290/99 and 626/99. 
SANJA Y KUMAR v. NARINDER VERMA [SRIKRISHNA, J.] 
61 
WITH 
Civil Ap

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