Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In the aforesaid communication dated 6.11.2013, the respondents have referred to the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Surinder Singh Vs. Union of India, (2007) 11 SCC 599, (Civil Appeal No.143 of 2001 decided on 30.03.2007), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has considered the similar issue. Relevant paragraphs of the said order read thus:

(13) We have perused the guidelines/norms/instructions dated 24-3-1993 formulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, on the subject of revision of educational qualifications prescribed for recruitment to various categories of ED Agents. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 of those guidelines/norms/instructions prescribes that the minimum educational qualifications for ED Delivery Agents, ED Stamp Vendors and other categories of ED should be 8th standard. Preference may be given to the candidates with matriculation qualification. However, it is specified that no preference should be given for any qualification higher than matriculation. It appears from the record that the Directorate, Post Offices, vide another Circular No. 19-17/97-ED & Trg. dated 21-11-1997, has decided that the merit of candidates for selection to the post of EDDA should be on the basis of the marks obtained in preferential qualification (i.e. matriculation) if such candidates are available, otherwise on the basis of the essential qualification viz. 8th standard.
(14)...
(15) These guidelines/norms/instructions clearly stipulate that if the candidates, who have passed matriculation examination, are available for selection to the posts of EDDA, the selection should be made by the Selection Committee on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in preferential qualification (i.e. matriculation) and in the absence of matriculate candidates, the selection has to be made on the basis of essential qualification viz. 8th standard. It appears that CAT as well as the High Court, both have lost sight of the object and import of the guidelines/norms/instructions dated 21-7-1998 (sic 21-11-1997) laid down by a competent authority. CAT is not competent to lay down criteria for the selection and appointment to the post of EDDA. It is the prerogative and authority of the employer to lay down suitable service conditions to the respective posts.
(emphasis supplied by us) (16) In our view, in service jurisprudence the prescription of preferential qualification not only refers to numeric superiority but is essentially related to better mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities, which are entrusted to the candidates after their selection to a particular post. All the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The basic object of prescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut-off level for a particular job in accordance with the minimum competency required for the performance of that job. The object of prescribing preferential qualification is to select the best amongst the better candidates who possess more competence than the others. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 puts a limit with respect to preferential qualification by way of a clear stipulation that no preference should be given to the qualification above matriculation. Hence, the preferential qualification was considered to be more effective and efficient and also it was a clear assumption that a candidate possessing the same is best suited for the post in question.