Summary
The Supreme Court held that statutory recruitment qualifications prevail over an inconsistent advertisement, but found the selected candidate’s exclusion arbitrary. His intermediate certificate described vocational subjects while also bearing the remark “Regular”; the employer rejected him after selection and initial training without resolving that ambiguity. Given litigation exceeding two decades, the Court directed his appointment under Article 142 on specified terms.
Issues
- Whether omission of a statutory vocational-stream exclusion from the recruitment advertisement displaced that exclusion.
- Whether the employer fairly assessed an ambiguous educational certificate after selection and pre-induction training.
- What relief was appropriate after prolonged litigation.
Provisions considered
- Schedule: educational qualifications, Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) Recruitment Rules, 1990, as amendedThe vocational-stream exclusion was operative before the recruitment; statutory qualifications prevailed over the advertisement. (¶¶ 4(a), 10, 11)
- Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Failure to consider the disclosed amendment was an apparent error which the High Court should have corrected on review. (¶¶ 4(h), 12)
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaSelection gave no indefeasible appointment right, but required fair treatment and a rational explanation for exclusion; the ambiguous certificate required individual assessment. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaExceptional directions secured appointment and limited notional service benefits after more than two decades of litigation. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Held
- The amendment had been gazetted before recruitment began. An advertisement or requisition inconsistent with statutory qualifications cannot prevail over them; the High Court erred in failing to correct its contrary premise on review. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- Eligibility and equivalence ordinarily fall to the employer. A selected candidate has no absolute right to appointment, but the State must provide a rational, non-arbitrary justification for excluding him after he has successfully passed the selection stages. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The certificate permitted two views. The general rejection ignored its “Regular” remark and lacked an individual assessment. Fairness required clarification from the issuing Board rather than exclusion based on incomplete knowledge. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Remand after over two decades would be inappropriate. Article 142 relief was confined to the third respondent, with actual appointment on probation and notional earlier appointment only for lawful pension and retiral benefits if confirmed. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Appeals disposed of without costs. Third respondent to receive probationary appointment within one month, creating a supernumerary post if needed. No salary arrears or retrospective seniority; subject to confirmation, notional service from appointment of the last 1995 selectee solely for retiral benefits, computed on last pay drawn.