SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Umrao Singh
Vs
Punjabi University, Patiala
Civil Appeal No.7244 of 2005 (With C.A.Nos.7245, 7246-47 and 7248 of 2005)
(Arijit Pasayat and S.H.Kapadia)
06/12/2005
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In these appeals challenge is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court holding that the selection of the
appellants for the post of Lecturers in the Department of Defence and Strategic
studies was illegal.
3. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:
Punjabi University, Patiala through its Registrar issued an advertisement in
the newspapers on July 25, 2002 vide which various posts of Readers as well as
Lecturers for different departments were advertised. Three posts of Lecturers
in the Department of Defence & Strategic Studies were advertised. The last
date for receipt of applications from eligible persons was indicated as August
12, 2002. Through a corrigendum later on, the last date for receipt of the applications
was extended up to September 16, 2002. As per the rules and regulations of the
respondents-University, the eligible conditions for applying to the post of
Lecturer in the University are as follows:
"(a) The basic qualification for the post of Lecturers is MA in defence
Strategic Studies and eligibility test for the Lecturership
conducted/accredited by UGC.
(b) The candidates who have completed M.Phil degree by 31st Dec. 1993 or have
submitted Ph.D. Thesis to the University in the concerned subject before 31st
Dec.2002 are exempted from appearing the NET/SET examination conducted by the
UGC.
(c) As per the advertisement the candidate must have passed Punjabi in
Matriculation examination or have passed Punjabi Prabodh or Punjabi Praveshika
Examination. Candidates belonging to States other than Punjab or Union
Territory Chandigarh, who have not passed Punjabi at Matric level are required
t pass Punjabi Prabodh examination from language Department, Punjab Patiala
before appearing for interview." *
4. Mr. Ajay Sondhi and Suveer Singh filed writ applications challenging
selection of the appellants as Lecturers. The writ petitioners Ajay Sondhi and
Suveer Singh claimed that being eligible candidates and fulfilling all the
terms and conditions, they had applied for the post of a Lecturer in Defence
and Strategic Studies before the last date of submission of the applications.
They qualified at eligibility test for Lecturership in University and Colleges,
conducted by University Grants Commission. It was further specifically pleaded
by them that they had studied Punjabi in matriculation also.
5. They made a grievance that Umrao Singh and Kewal Krishan who had applied for
the post of Lecturer were not eligible as they were not qualified. Umrao Singh
had not qualified the eligibility test for the Lecturership in Universities and
Colleges, as required by the University Grants Commission and was not even
exempted from the aforesaid test, since he had submitted his Ph.D thesis on
September 23, 2002 only i.e. after the last date of receipt of the
applications. Similarly, Kewal Krishan was not eligible since he had not passed
his matriculation examination with Punjabi language. Accordingly, it was
claimed that the selection of the aforesaid Umrao Singh and Kewal Krishan was
totally contrary to the University Rules and Regulations and also contrary to
the advertisement.
6. The claim of the writ-petitioners Ajay Sondhi and Suveer Singh was resisted
by the respondents, i.e. the University and the non-official respondents. The
university submitted that Umrao Singh had submitted his thesis for evaluation
on 16.9.2002 and not on 23.9.2002 as was claimed. Reliance was also placed on a
decision dated 10.1.2003 whereby the Syndicate had decided that period of two
years would be given to the recruits/selectees for passing Punjabi upto
matriculation examination and the condition of Punjabi upto matriculation level
at the time of recruitment shall not be implemented and the aforesaid
examination was to be conducted by the University itself. The High Court was of
the view that though by corrigendum the last date was extended upto 16.9.2002,
the original date was 12.8.2002 and, therefore, respondent no.3-Umrao Singh was
not eligible. In any event he had submitted the thesis on 23.9.2002. Similarly,
it was held that respondent no.4-Kewal Krishan was not eligible as he had not
qualified his matriculation examination in Punjabi language. Accordingly, the
selection of Umrao Singh, Kewal Krishan and Inderjeet Singh was quashed.
7. In support of the appeals learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. Learned counsel for the
appellant-Umrao Singh submitted that the requirement in the advertisement was
as follows:
"(a) The basic qualification for the post of Lecturers is MA in defence
Strategic Studies and eligibility test for the Lecturership
conducted/accredited by UGC.
(b) The candidates who have completed M.Phil degree by 31st Dec.1993 or have
submitted Ph.D. Thesis to the University in the concerned subject before 31st
Dec.2002 are exempted from appearing the NET/SET examination conducted by the
UGC.
(c) As per the advertisement the candidate must have passed Punjabi in
Matriculation examination or have passed Punjabi Prabodh or Punjabi Praveshika
Examination, candidates belonging to States other than Punjab or Union
Territory Chandigarh, who have not passed Punjabi at Matric level are required
to pass Punjabi Prabodh examination from language Department, Punjab Patiala before
appearing for interview." *
8. Undisputedly, the last date for making the application in terms of the
corrigendum issued was 16.9.2002. The High Court proceeded on erroneous
impression that the thesis of the appellant-Umrao Singh was submitted on 23.9.2002.
The High Court held that he had neither passed the eligibility test conducted
by the University Grants Commission nor he had submitted the thesis for Ph.D
entitling him for exemption from the said test. The appellant Kewal Krishan and
the University submitted that in terms of the Syndicate decision dated
10.1.2003, extended period was granted to pass Punjabi examination. There was
no suppression of any material fact and considering his comparatively better
merit he was selected. Learned counsel for Inderjeet Singh submitted that
though there was no grievance made by the writ-petitioner so far he is
concerned; his election has also been quashed. Learned counsel for the
University supported the stand of the appellants. Learned counsel appearing for
Ajay Sondhi submitted that the High Court has analysed the factual position in
its proper perspective and there is no infirmity in its conclusions to warrant
interference.
9. The case of the appellant-Umrao Singh does not present any factual controversy.
From the stand of the University and the documents annexed, it is clear that
Umrao Singh submitted his thesis on 16.9.2002 which was within the period of
eligibility. That being so, the High Court was not justified in accepting the
stand of Ajay Sondhi that the thesis was submitted on 23.9.2002. By referring
to a wrong date the selection of Umrao Singh was held to be invalid. The
conclusion is clearly erroneous. The selection of Umrao Singh does not suffer
from any infirmity.
10. So far as appellant Inderjeet Singh is concerned there was no challenge to his selection and, further the High Court indicated no reason as to how his selection was not legal. On that ground alone the order of the High Court so far as appellant Inderjeet Singh is concerned stands quashed. #
11. So far as the appellant Kewal Krishan is concerned, though the University
supported the selection, one thing is clear that the advertisement itself
indicated that the applicant was required to pass the concerned 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 appellant-Kewal Krishan. The eligibility criteria
of passing the Punjabi examination was a condition which goes to the root of
eligibility. By a subsequent decision that condition could not have been
altered. #
12. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope for relaxation
of norms. Although Court must look with respect 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 qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected
candidate is concerned gets vitiated. # In P.K. Ramchandra Iyer and Ors.
vs. Union of India and Ors. this Court held that once it is established
that there is no power to relax essential qualification, the entire process of
selection of the candidate was in contravention of the established norms
prescribed by advertisement. The power to relax must be clearly spelt out
and cannot otherwise be exercised. #
13. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. And Ors. vs. Rajendra Bhimrao
Mandve and Ors. , it was held as under:
"It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the rules of the game,
meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the
authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has
commenced. Therefore, the decision of the High Court, to the extent it
pronounced upon the invalidity of the circular orders dated 26.6.1996, does not
merit acceptance in our hand and the same are set aside." *
14. The view was recently re-iterated in Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission vs. B. Swapna and Ors. (2005 (2) Supreme 615).
15. Therefore, the High Court was right so far as its decision relates to
appellant Kewal Krishan is concerned, and no interference is called for. In the
ultimate, the appeals filed by Umrao Singh and Inderjeet Singh are allowed
while the appeal filed by appellant Kewal Krishan is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. It is however made clear that the selection process which
was permitted to be continued shall be finalized, after giving effect to the
present judgment.