caselaws
Supreme Court of India
K.Radhika vs T.Rajya Laxmi & Ors on 5 May, 2015Author: Chelameswar
Bench: J. Chelameswar, Adarsh Kumar Goel
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4201 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12662 of 2014)
K. Radhika …..Appellant
Versus
T. Rajya Laxmi & Others …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Chelameswar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. All the respondents have been served but none appears for anyone of
the respondents.
3. Aggrieved by a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No. 37437 of 2012 dated 2nd April, 2014, the third respondent
therein preferred the appeal.
4. The facts leading to the impugned judgment are as follows:
On 27.12.2011, a notification was issued by the office of the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad inviting applications to fill up 5
posts of the Personal Assistants by direct recruitment in A.P. Judicial
Ministerial Service, in the unit of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
The notification prescribed the following qualifications:-
“1. Must have passed Intermediate Examination conducted by A.P. State
Board of Intermediate Education or any equivalent Examination.
2. Must have passed A.P. Government Technical Examination in English
Shorthand by Higher Grade, provided that if candidates, who have passed the
examination by the Higher Grade are not available, those who have passed
the examination by Lower Grade will be considered.
3. Must have passed Typewriting examination in English by Higher Grade
conducted by the State Board of Technical Education and Training A.P.
Hyderabad.
4. Preference will be given to the persons, who possess Computer
knowledge.”
5. 44 candidates applied in response to the notification. The selection
process consisted of a written examination followed by an interview. In
the said selection process, the appellant was declared selected.
6. Challenging the selection of the appellant, the first respondent
herein filed the above-mentioned writ petition on the ground that the
appellant herein was having only the qualification of a lower grade in
shorthand whereas the first respondent herein passed the examination in
English shorthand by higher grade and, therefore, the selection of the
appellant is contrary to the selection process and arbitrary. The High
Court allowed the writ petition and recorded as follows:-
“Now, we are called upon to decide whether language of the qualification
clause is a mandatory character or not. We are of the view that this
clause is mandatory in all sense since words “must have” used in the said
notification in clear terms it indicate so. Hence, going thereby first
preference shall be given to all the candidates having qualification of
Shorthand English by higher grade and in the event no candidate is
available from higher grade, next lower grade candidate has to be
considered. To be very specific, no initiative shall be made to invite any
application from the candidates possessing qualification of English
Shorthand by lower grade, until required number of candidates having
qualification of Shorthand by lower grade is found to be unsuitable. Thus,
at the first instance, respondent no. 3 was not eligible to be considered
when a number of Shorthand English by higher-grade candidates were found
being considered. Selection ought to have been kept confined to candidates
having qualification of English Stenography by higher grade, after having
found non-suitability amongst those candidates, candidates of the category
of third respondent should have been invited.”
7. We regret to say that it is rather difficult to understand the
substance of the above extracted para, we hazard a guess that in substance,
the High Court held that so long as the candidates who have passed the
English Shorthand Higher Grade Examination are available, candidates with
shorthand lower grade can not be considered.
8. There is no finding by the High Court that suitable candidates with
Shorthand higher grade are available. If the procedure required by the
High Court was to be followed, there would be avoidable wastage of time.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant pointed to the
copy of the answer script of the first respondent herein. It consists of
innumerable errors. We only hope that it is not the desire of the High
Court that such candidates are required to be appointed merely because they
have the higher grade qualification. In the circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the selection process should not have been interfered with.
10. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under
appeal. No costs.
……………………………..J.
(J. Chelameswar)
……………………………..J.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
New Delhi
May 5, 2015
———————–
5
Comments