Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to quash the selections of Umrao Singh and Inderjeet Singh, who met the eligibility criteria, but was correct to uphold the quashing of Kewal Krishan’s selection because the essential Punjabi language qualification could not be relaxed post‑advertisement.

Summary

Punjabi University advertised three Lecturer positions in Defence & Strategic Studies, requiring a MA, UGC eligibility test or exemption via M.Phil/Ph.D. thesis submission by 31 Dec 2002, and a Punjabi language qualification. The High Court quashed the selections of Umrao Singh, Kewal Krishan and Inderjeet Singh on grounds of alleged ineligibility. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Umrao Singh had submitted his Ph.D. thesis on 16 September 2002, within the deadline, and that there was no factual dispute, thus setting aside the High Court’s order against him. Inderjeet Singh’s selection was not challenged and the High Court gave no reason to invalidate it, so his selection was upheld. However, the Court held that Kewal Krishan’s lack of the required Punjabi qualification could not be cured by a later university decision, and the High Court’s quashing of his selection was affirmed. Consequently, the appeals of Umrao Singh and Inderjeet Singh were allowed, while the appeal of Kewal Krishan was dismissed, and the selection process was to be finalized accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether Umrao Singh satisfied the eligibility condition of submitting his Ph.D. thesis before the prescribed deadline.
Whether the High Court erred in quashing the selections of Umrao Singh and Inderjeet Singh.
Whether the selection committee had authority to relax the essential Punjabi language qualification after the advertisement and commencement of the selection process.
Whether Kewal Krishan’s selection could be validated despite non‑fulfilment of the Punjabi language requirement.

Subjects

university recruitmenteligibility criteriaqualification exemptionUGC NET/SETPunjabi language requirementrelaxation of normsrule of law

Judgment

A UMRAOSINGH
v.
PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, PATIALA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 6, 2005

B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Selection for ·the posts of Lecturer-Challenged on the ground that
selected candidates were ineligible as not possessing the requisite
C qualifications-Selection quashed by High Court:_an appeal, Held: High
Court erred in quashing the selection of two of the candidates as they were
eligible in terms of eligibility conditions-Hence, the order of the High Court
quashing the selection of these candidates set aside-However, High Court
rightly quashed the selection of the third candidate as he was not fulfilling .•
the eligibility condition of passing the qualifying examination in Punjabi
D language as on the prescribed date.

Punjabi University vide its' advertisement in the newspapers invited
applications up to August 12, 2002 for recruitment to various posts of Readers
as well as Lecturers including thre~ posts of Lecturers in the Department of
Defence & Strategic Studies. The last date for submission of the applications
E was extended up to September 16, 2002. Appellants were selected but their
selection was challenged.by the writ petitioners on the ground that they were
not eligible as not qualified. High Court quashed the selection of the
appellants. Hence the present appeal and connected appeals. .
'
\
F Allowing the appeals filed by two of the selected candidates and
dismissing the other, the Court

· HELD: 1. The case . of the appellant does not present any factual
controversy. From the stand of the University and the documents annexed, it
is clear that he submitted his thesis on 16.9.2002 which was within the period
G of eligibility. The High Court was not justified in accepting the stand of one
of the respondents that the thesis was submitted on 23.9.2002. By referring
to a wrong date the selection of the appellant was held to be invalid. Thus the
conclusion is clearly erroneous. (534-H; 535-Al

2. So far as selection of the appellant 'I' in the connected appeal is
If 530
UMRAOSINGHv. PUNJABIUNIVERSITY,PATIALA 531
concerned there was no challenge to his selection and, further the High Court A
indicated no reason as to how his selection was not legal. On that ground
alone the order of the High Court stands quashed. [535-BI

3.1. So far as the selection of yet another candidate, appellant 'KK' in
another connected appeal is concerned, though the University supported the
selection, one thing is clear that the advertisement itself indicated that the B
applicant was required to pass the qualifying 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
the appellant (535-C, DJ C
3.2. Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope for
relaxation of norms. Although Court must look 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 D
qualification, the entire process of selection so far as the selected candidate
is concerned gets vitiated. Therefore, the High Court was right in quashing
the appointment of 'KK', and no interference is called for. (535-E; 536-8)

P.K. Ramchandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (19841 2
SCC 14; Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. And Ors. v. Rajendra E
Bhimrao Mandve and Ors., [2001) 10 SCC 51 and Secretary, Andhra Pradesh
Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors., (2005) 2 Supreme 615,
relied on.

4. It is clarified that the selection process which was permitted to be
continued shall be finalized, after giving effect to the present judgment. F
[536-C)

CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7244of2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.2005 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 18376 of2002. G
WITH

C.A. Nos. 7245, 7246-47 and 7248 of2005.

K.K. Mohan for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 7244 and 7245/2005. H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Hari Palli, S. Ajay Gupta, Gurvinder Pal Singh and Jagjit Singh Chhabra
for the Appellant In C.A. Nos. 7246-47/2005 and Respondent No. 7244/2005.

Dinesh Venna, A.P. Mohanty, K.G. Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat, Ms. Sangeeta
Gaur, Debasis Misra, R.K. Kapoor, M.K. Venna, Mrs. Anita Shanna and Anis
Ahmed Khan for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted.

In these appeals challenge is to the judgment rendered by a Division
C 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.

The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:

D Punjabi University, Patiala through its Registrar issued an advertisement
in the new~papers 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
E 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 respondent-University, the eligible conditions for
applying to the post of Lecturer in th{'., 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
F conducted/accredited by UGC.
(b) The candidates who have completed M.Phil degree by 3 !st Dec.
I 993 or have submitted Ph.D. Thesis to the University in the
concerned subject before 3 lst Dec. 2002 are exempted from
appearing the NET/SET examination conducted by the UGC.
G
(c) As per the advertisement the candidate must have passed Punjabi
in Matriculation examination or have passed Punj~bi Prapodh 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
H examination from language Department, Punjab Patiala before
. UMRAOSINGHv.PUNJABIUNIVERSITY,PATIALA[PASAYAT,J.] 533
appearing for interview." A
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 B
qualified at eligibility test for Lecturership in University and Colleges,
conducted by University Grants Comm.ission. It was further specifically pleaded
by them that they had studied Punjabi in matriculation also.

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. C
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 D
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.

The claim of the writ-petitioners Ajay Sondhi and Suveer Singh was E
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 F
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 G
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 ofUmrao Singh,
Kewal Krishan and Inderjeet Singh was quashed.

In support of the appeals learned counsel for the appellants submitted H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 (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
D examination from language Department, Punjab Patiala before
appearing for interview."

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
E 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 hi terms of the Syndicate

F
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 bettet 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 selection 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
G has analysed the factual position in its proper perspective and there is no
infirmity in its conclusions to warrant interference.

The case of the appellant-Umrao Singh does not present any factual
controversy. Frorn the stand of the University and the documents annexed,
it is clear that Umrao Singh submitted his thesis on 16.9.2002 which was
H within the period of eligibility. That being so, the High Court was not justified
UMRAOSINGHv. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY,PATIALA[PASAYAT,J.] 535
in accepting the stand of Ajay Sondhi that the thesis was submitted on A
23.9.2002. By referring to a wrong date the selection ofUmrao Singh was held
to be invalid. The conclusion is clearly erroneous. The selection of Umrao
Singh does not suffer from any infirmity.

So far as appellant lnderjeet Singh is concerned there was no challenge
to his selection and, further the High Court indicated no reason as to how B
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.

So far as the appellant Kewal Krishan is concerned, though the
University supported the selection, one thing is clear that the advertisement C
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 D
root of eligibility. By a subsequent decision that condition could not have
been altered.

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 E
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. v.
Union of India and Ors., [1984] 2 SCC 141 this Court held that once it is
established that there is no power to relax essential qualification, the entire
F.
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.

In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. And Ors. v. Rajendra G
Bhimrao Mandve and Ors., [200 l] 10 SCC 51, 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 H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A 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."

The view was recently re-iterated in Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public
Service Commission v. B. Swapna and Ors., (2005) 2 Supreme 615.
B
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 lnderjeet 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
C which was permitted to be continued shall be finalized, after giving effect to
the present judgment.

S.K.S. Civil Appeal Nos. 7244,7245,7248 of2005 allowed.
and Civil Appeal Nos. 7246-7247 of2005 dismissed.

/