Higher qualification may not be suitable qualification for every post:DB
JKUT (Jammu), October-18-2021-( JNF):- A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal holds that higher qualification may not be suitable qualification for every post and,if candidates with higher qualifications are excluded, the action on the part of the employer in this regard cannot be faulted with and said to be unfair or arbitrary.
While upholding the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Division Bench dismissed the petition filed by 348 persons.
In all, 348 persons have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application no. 1107 of 2021 titled Rohit Chib and others v. Service Selection Board, J&K UT.
The aforesaid order of the Tribunal is an interlocutory order by which the Original Application of the petitioners has been entertained but they have been denied interim order as prayed for on the ground that the grant of the same would amount to granting the final relief which is not permissible in law.
DB observed that the short controversy which actually arises in the original application or as a matter of fact in the writ petition is as to whether petitioners are entitled to grant of interim protection pending the original application which is dependent upon the eligibility of the petitioners to participate in the selection for the post of Class-IV employees in the various departments of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. If the petitioners are not qualified and eligible to participate in the selection process, obviously, they are not entitled to any interim protection. The Advertisement No.1 of 2020 dated 26.06.2020 invited applications for appointment on 8575 employees on Class-IV posts with one of the
conditions that the minimum and maximum qualification for appointment to Class-IV posts under direct recruitment shall be “minimum matric and maximum 10+2” with thefurther conditionthat any candidate having qualification other than prescribed shall not be eligible for Class-IV post. The petitioners are candidates who are graduates or possessing even higher qualification and, as such, have been denied participation in the selection process.
DB observed that it is well settled and recognized that appointments on public posts have to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules of service or the terms and conditions of the advertisement. In Yogesh Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, it has been clearly held by the Supreme Court that recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the recruitment Rules, if any. Any deviation from the Rules or the terms of the advertisement amounts to allowing ineligible persons and depriving right of consideration of many deserving eligible candidates.
Division Bench after hearing Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi with Adv Parimoksh Seth for the petitioners wheresas Adcocare General DC Raina appeared for the UT observed that the appointment to Class-IV posts in Jammu and Kashmir Public Service has to be in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Appointment to Class-IV (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2020 as promulgated vide S.O. 184 dated 04.06.2020 issued in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These Rules specifically provide that the Board i.eJammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board shall invite applications from the persons who are domiciled in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and who possess minimum and maximum educational qualification as prescribed in notification SRO 99 of 2008 dated 07.04.2008.
DB further observed that the SRO 99 of 2008 categorically lays down that for the purposes of recruitment of Class-IV posts, the minimum and maximum qualification shall be matric and 10+2, respectively and the advertisement also specifically provides that in accordance with the above Rules and the SRO 99 of 2008, the maximum and minimum qualification for appointment to Class-IV posts through direct recruitment shall be “minimum matric and maximum 10+2” with the further rider that any candidate having qualification other than prescribed shall not be eligible for Class-IV post.
- It may be noted as the appointment to such posts has to be on the basis of the suitability vis-a-vis the qualification held by the person and the nature of the job, for which purpose the decision of the employer is final provided it is not arbitrary in nature. In other words, the suitability and the qualifications for any post have to be laid down by the employer and the same are not liable to be interfered with judicially, until and unless the policy decision in that regard is found to be irrational or arbitrary. In the case of appointments to Class-IV posts, higher qualification than 10+2 may not be a suitable for many reasons; the first being that a highly qualified person may not be in a position to discharge the menial work which is required to be done by Class-IV employee; secondly, if such highly qualified candidates are allowed to compete with candidates with lower qualification as prescribed, it is but obvious that they will score above them and would get selected to the detriment of the candidates possessing the requisite eligibility; and thirdly, such candidates of higher qualification, if selected, would always be looking for a better job and, as soon as they are selected in some other better discipline, they would leave the Class-IV post rendering the entire selection as useless forcing the employer to get those posts re-advertised and re-filled.
DB said that the laying down of the criteria of the minimum and the maximum qualification for the Class-IV post as matric and 10+2 respectively is neither irrational, unreasonable nor arbitrary.
With these observations, Division Bench observed that in view of the law as discussed, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal is justified in refusing interim protection to the petitioners at the interim stage of the original application. With these observations, Division Bench dismissed the petitions with the request to the Tribunal to dispose of all original applications on the subject in the light of the observations and the law as discussed above. JNF 