ZAHOOR AHMAD RATHER AND ORS ETC versus SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD AND ORS ETC

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1082 · Decided: 05-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
ZAHOOR AHMAD RATHER AND ORS ETC
v.
SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD AND ORS ETC
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11853-11854 of 2018)
DECEMBER 05, 2018
[U. U. LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Service Law:
Selection – Advertisement for filling up posts of “Technician
III” – Qualification specified for the post was “Matric with ITI” –
Appellants applied for the post – All of them possessed Diploma
and none of them possessed ITI certification – They were called for
written test as well as interview – Thereafter Service Selection Board
decided that only ITI in the relevant trade would be considered for
the post – Appellants were not included in the Select List – Appellants
filed writ petitions seeking consideration of their candidature for
selection to the post and sought for quashing of the Select List –
Single Judge of High Court quashing the Select List held that it was
not open to exclude the appellants after the process of selection
was set in motion and that Diploma being higher qualification than
ITI, their qualification was adequate for the post in question – In
Letters Patent Appeals, Division  Bench of High Court reversed the
judgment of Single Judge – On appeal, held: The Board did not
bring about any change in the Rules or in the norms governing the
selection mid-stream – It only resolved to adhere to the qualification
which was prescribed in the advertisement – It would not be
permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification
necessarily presupposes acquisition of lower qualification – It is
for the State to determine whether a particular qualification should
or should not be regarded as equivalent qualification – The
stipulation in Note 12 of the advertisement that the Board was entitled
to assign additional weightage for a higher qualification vests in
the Board with a discretion in pursuance of an enabling power,
which may or may not be exercised – A candidate has no vested
right to assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional
weightage to a higher qualification – Therefore, Division Bench
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1082
1082
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
was right in holding that the appellants did not meet the prescribed
qualification – However, since the appellants have spent nearly
four years in pursuing their quest for the job and might have become
age barred, they are granted age relaxation to the extent of four
years to apply for any post advertised by the State in the next two
years.
Judicial Review:
Prescription of qualification – For recruitment to a post –
Judicial review – Permissibility – Held: Prescription of qualifications
for a post is a matter of recruitment policy – It is no part of the role
or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications – Similarly equivalence of a qualification
is also not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the
power of judicial review.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. The prescribed qualifications for the post of
Technician-III in the Power Development Department is a Matric
with ITI in the relevant trade.  The Board at its 116th meeting
took notice of the fact that in some districts, the interviews had
been conducted for candidates with a diploma in Electrical
Engineering while in other districts candidates with a diploma
had not been considered to be eligible for the post of Technician-
III. Moreover, candidates with an ITI in diverse trades had also
been interviewed for the post.  The Board resolved at its meeting
that only an ITI in the relevant trade namely the Electrical trade
is the prescribed qualification specified in the advertisement.
[Para 17][1093-A-C]
2. The Board did not bring about any change in the rules or
the norms governing the selection mid-stream. There was no
deviation from prescribed requirement for the post, of ITI with
Matric.  In fact the Board resolved to adhere to the qualification
which was prescribed in the advertisement.  An anomalous
situation had arisen as a consequence of which, despite the
prescribed qualifications, interviews of diploma holders had been
conducted in some districts.  This was plainly in breach of the
conditions of the advertisement and was rectified by the Board.
[Para 18][1093-D-F]
ZAHOOR AHMAD RATHER AND ORS v. SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD
AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
3.1 The second ground which weighed 

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