UMRAO SINGH versus PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 06-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UMRAOSINGH 
v. 
PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 6, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Selection for ·the posts of Lecturer-Challenged on the ground that 
selected candidates were ineligible as not possessing the requisite 
C qualifications-Selection quashed by High Court:_an appeal, Held: High 
Court erred in quashing the selection of two of the candidates as they were 
eligible in terms of eligibility conditions-Hence, the order of the High Court 
quashing the selection of these candidates set aside-However, High Court 
rightly quashed the selection of the third candidate as he was not fulfilling 
the eligibility condition of passing the qualifying examination in Punjabi 
D language as on the prescribed date. 
Punjabi University vide its' advertisement in the newspapers invited 
applications up to August 12, 2002 for recruitment to various posts of Readers 
as well as Lecturers including thre~ posts of Lecturers in the Department of 
Defence & Strategic Studies. The last date for submission of the applications 
E was extended up to September 16, 2002. Appellants were selected but their 
selection was challenged.by the writ petitioners on the ground that they were 
not eligible as not qualified. High Court quashed the selection of the 
appellants. Hence the present appeal and connected appeals. 
F 
Allowing the appeals filed by two of the selected candidates and 
dismissing the other, the Court 
· HELD: 1. The case .. of the appellant does not present any factual 
controversy. From the stand of the University and the documents annexed, it 
is clear that he submitted his thesis on 16.9.2002 which was within the period 
G of eligibility. The High Court was not justified in accepting the stand of one 
of the respondents that the thesis was submitted on 23.9.2002. By referring 
to a wrong date the selection of the appellant was held to be invalid. Thus the 
conclusion is clearly erroneous. (534-H; 535-Al 
2. So far as selection of the appellant 'I' in the connected appeal is 
If 
530 
.• 
. 
' 
\ 
UMRAOSINGHv. PUNJABIUNIVERSITY,PATIALA 
531 
concerned there was no challenge to his selection and, further the High Court A 
indicated no reason as to how his selection was not legal. On that ground 
alone the order of the High Court stands quashed. [535-BI 
3.1. So far as the selection of yet another candidate, appellant 'KK' in 
another connected appeal is concerned, though the University supported the 
selection, one thing is clear that the advertisement itself indicated that the B 
applicant was required to pass the qualifying examination before appearing 
for interview. Admittedly, this is not a case of that nature. The decision of the 
. University subsequent to the last date of making the application and after the 
process of selection had started, cannot in any way, come to the assistance of 
the appellant (535-C, DJ 
C 
3.2. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope for 
relaxation of norms. Although Court must look upon the performance of duties 
by experts in the respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of ushering 
in a society based on rule of law. Once it is most satisfactorily established 
that the Selection Committee did not have the power to relax essential D 
qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate 
is concerned gets vitiated. Therefore, the High Court was right in quashing 
the appointment of 'KK', and no interference is called for. (535-E; 536-8) 
P.K. Ramchandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (19841 2 
SCC 14; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. And Ors. v. Rajendra E 
Bhimrao Mandve and Ors., [2001) 10 SCC 51 and Secretary, Andhra Pradesh 
Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors., (2005) 2 Supreme 615, 
relied on. 
4. It is clarified that the selection process which was permitted to be 
continued shall be finalized, after giving effect to the present judgment. 
F 
[536-C) 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7244of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2005 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 18376 of2002. 
G 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 7245, 7246-47 and 7248 of2005. 
K.K. Mohan for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 7244 and 7245/2005. 
H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Hari Palli, S. Ajay Gupta, Gurvinder Pal Singh and Jagjit Singh Chhabra 
B 
for the Appellant In C.A. Nos. 7246-47/2005 and Respondent No. 7244/2005. 
Dinesh Venna, A.P. Mohanty, K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.