Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Vinod Kumar And Ors. vs The Hon'Ble High Court Of J And K And Ors. on 15 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)JKJ603
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J.
1. Both these petitions are based upon common facts and law, hence are being decided by a common judgment.
2. High Court vide its Advertisement Notice dated 29.12.2001 invited applications on the prescribed form for the posts of Steno Typist, Junior Assistant Orderlies/Chowkidars Petitioners in both these Petitions are applicants for the post, of Steno Typist Annexure "A" to the aforesaid advertisement notice prescribed following qualification for the post Steno
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
S. No. Name of Post Qualification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Steno/Typist (1) i. Higher Secondary Elective (10+2) or itseauivalent of any recognized University or Board of Examination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Certificate of shorthand and Typing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Speed in Shorthand and Typing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Shorthand -- 65 W.P.M.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Typing -- 35 W.P.M.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Petitioners claim to have possessed the requisite qualification notified in the advertisement notice It is averred in the writ petitions that some of the applicants have been asked to collect call letters, whereas the petitioners have not been summoned for the short hand/typing test. In SWP No. 1636/2003 "reference is made to call letter dated 13.8.2003 issued to one Sudershan Kumar who has been summoned to appear in the test. Petitioners have accordingly sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to allow them to participate in the selection process and accord consideration for the selection/appointment.
4. In the disclaimer filed by the High Court through Registrar Vigilance, who is one of the party respondents, it is stated that after the commencement of selection process, the Commitee constituted for making selection after noticing the number of posts to be filled and the response of large number of candidates resolved to short list the candidates on the basis of higher qualification i.e. graduation. The short listing criterion was adopted in view of the fact that as against 21 available vacancies of Steno Typist, as many as 3300 applications have been received. It is further many mentioned that with the object to select the best, the zone of consideration was narrowed down by calling only those candidates who are graduates and possess other technical qualifications as prescribed in the notification even after the short listing as many as 1300 candidates have been summoned for participation in the Selection process. The approximate ratio after adopting short listing criteria is 1:65. The criteria adopted is reasonable, valid and permissible under law. In respect to call letter sent to one Sudershan Kumar reference to which is made In SWP No. 1636/2003, it is specifically stated that call letter has been issued to said candidate due to clerical/computer error and he has not been permitted to participate in the selection process.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the short listing criterion adopted by the High Court is impermissible. According to the petitioners, respondents are not entitled to do away with the qualification prescribed in the advertisement notification and introduce a new qualification other then the one notified for such selection. In this regard reliance is placed by the petitioner on the following judgments :
(i) 1996 (4) SCC 379, "Prem Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors.".
(ii) AIR 2000 SC 919 "Mohd. Raizul Usman Gani and Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Ors.".
(iii) 2000(2) SCT 114, "Kamaljeet Kour v. State of Punjab"
(iv) 1999 (2) SCT 641, "Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab"
(v) AIR 1987 SC 1676, P.D. Aggarwal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors."
(vi) 1986 (1) SCC 675 "Union of India and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Roy"
In "Prem Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors.", 1996 (4) SCC 319, the issue involved was whether any weightage can be given to higher qualification than prescribed. The other issue decided by the court in that the selection of candidates more than advertised vacancies is impermissible. This judgment has no application to the facts of present case. another case "Union of India and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Roy", 1986 (1) SCC 675 is also not relevant.
In "P.D. Aggarawal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.", AIR 1987 SC 1676, the issue involved was whether the statutory rules can be amended or superseded by office memorandum or an administrative order, which is not the issue involved in the present petition.
In "Gurvinder Singh v. State of Punjab", 1999 (2) SCT 641, a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court held that prescription of additional qualifications, different than those prescribed under Recruitment Rules is impermissible.
In "Kamaljeet Kour v. State of Punjab", 2000(2) SCT 114, the same issue was involved as in 1999 (2) SCT 641, hence this is also not relevant.
6. Mr. Amresh Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon number of judgments of the Apex Court.
In case "S.B. Mathur and Ors. v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Ors.", AIR 1988 SC 2073, the Supreme Court held as under :
"The minimum eligibility qualification has to be kept distinct from the zone of consideration and even if there are a large number of candidates who satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement it is not always required that they should be included in the zone of consideration, it being open to the authority concerned to restrict the zone of consideration amongst the eligible candidates in any reasonable manner."
In case "Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Anr.", AIR 1995 SC 77, the Supreme Court held as under :
"Where in a process of short-listing the candidates who had applied for the post of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts, the M. P. Public Service Commission took a decision to call for interview only such candidates who had completed seven and half years of practice, instead of calling for interview all applicants who had put in five years of practice, which is the minimum requirement to make an applicant eligible to apply for the post, raising the period form five years to seven and half years' practice for purpose of calling the candidates for interview did not amount to changing the statutory criteria by an administrative decision.
In 1993 AIR SCW 848, the Supreme Court held as under:
"It is always open to the recruiting agency to screen candidates due for consideration at the threshold of the process of selection by the prescribing higher eligibility qualification so that the field of selection can be narrowed down with the ultimate objective of promoting candidates with higher qualifications to enter the zone of consideration. The procedure, therefore, adopted in the present case by the Commission was legitimate. The decision of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
7. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is now settled proposition of law that the possession of minimum qualification prescribed does not entitled a candidate to seek consideration. A distinction has to be drawn between the eligibility and zone of consideration. Possession of minimum prescribed qualification makes a person eligible to apply, however, where a large number of applicants apply for any post and the selection authority decides to adopt a rational, fair and valid criteria of short listing the candidates with a view to narrow down the zone of consideration on the basis of higher qualifications, the same does not violate any of the rights of candidates. In the present case keeping in view large number of applicants for the post in question, the selection authority decided to prescribe graduation as the qualification for calling the candidates for short hand/typing test, and the same cannot be said to be a irrational, unfair or invalid nor does it amount to changing the prescribed qualifications.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed.