1997 (3) TMI 599 - SC - Indian Laws

Deadline for Qualifications Key in Candidate Eligibility Decision

The Supreme Court held that candidates must possess the requisite qualifications by the last date prescribed for submitting applications, reaffirming that ... Whether the view taken by the majority that it is enough for a candidate to be qualified by the date of interview even if he was not qualified by the lasts date prescribed for receiving the applications, is correct in law and whether the majority was right in extending the principle of Rule 37 of the public Service Commission Rules to the present case by analogy? Whether the direction of the Division Bench to treat the candidates who were not qualified by the lasts date of receipt of applications as juniors, as a class, to those who were qualified, was not a just one ? Held that:- Thirteen Years have passed by since their initial appointment. upturning the inter-se seniority at this distance of time would not be just and equitable. Having given our anxious and earnests consideration to the question and keeping in view the fact that we are sitting in review jurisdiction and that this particular aspect is a matter lying within the discretion of the Court, we do not think it appropriate to interfere with the unanimous opinion of the three learned Judges of this Court on this aspect. It is true that the Division Bench of the High Court had granted the relief not only to the four review petitioners/writ petitioners but to all the candidates falling in that category yet we cannot ignore the fact that even Sahai, J. who agreed with the review petitioners on the first issue, thought it just and proper not to disturb the inter-se seniority between these two groups of selected candidates. The said seniority was determined by the selecting Authority. Though certain allegations are made with respect to the fairness of the process of selection, that issue is not open in these review applications nor was it gone into by this court in the civil appeals. Issues Involved:1. Whether it is legally permissible for a candidate to be qualified by the date of the interview even if not by the last date prescribed for receiving applications.2. Whether the direction to treat candidates who were not qualified by the last date of receipt of applications as juniors to those who were qualified was just.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Qualification by Date of InterviewThe first issue concerns the legality of allowing candidates to be qualified by the date of the interview rather than the last date prescribed for receiving applications. The majority judgment by Dr. T.K. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ., held that it was permissible for the 33 candidates to appear for the interview as they were qualified by the date of the interview. The reasoning was that this approach allowed the recruiting authority to get the best talents available, which was in the public interest. However, R.M. Sahai, J., dissented, holding that candidates must possess the requisite qualifications by the last date prescribed for submitting applications.Upon review, the Supreme Court found the majority judgment unsustainable in law. It reaffirmed the established legal principle that the eligibility of candidates must be judged with reference to the last date prescribed for receiving applications. The Court emphasized that an advertisement calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public, and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. Allowing candidates who acquired qualifications after the prescribed date but before the interview would be unfair to other similarly placed persons who might have applied had they known this was permissible. Therefore, the Court held in favor of the review petitioners on this issue, affirming the opinion of Sahai, J., and concluded that the 33 respondents should not have been allowed to appear for the interview.Issue 2: Inter-Se SeniorityThe second issue pertains to the inter-se seniority between candidates who were qualified by the last date for receiving applications and those who were not. The Division Bench had directed that the 33 respondents should be treated as juniors en bloc to the candidates who were fully qualified by the prescribed date. The Supreme Court had to decide whether this direction was just.The Court noted several factors:- Writ Petition No. 250 of 1983, filed by similarly placed persons, was dismissed and had become final.- Writ Petition No. 483 of 1983 was filed by only four candidates in their individual capacity, not in a representative capacity.- Sahai, J., despite disagreeing with the majority on the legal question, opined that the seniority of the 33 respondents should not be disturbed.- The 33 respondents had been appointed since 1984 and had earned two promotions, while the review petitioners and others similarly placed had also been promoted once.- Thirteen years had passed since the initial appointments, making it inequitable to alter the inter-se seniority at this stage.Given these considerations and acknowledging the unanimous opinion of the three learned judges on the seniority issue, the Supreme Court decided not to interfere with the established seniority. The Court emphasized that this decision was made in the context of its review jurisdiction and the discretionary nature of the relief sought.Conclusion:The review petitions were dismissed, with the Supreme Court clarifying the legal issue regarding qualification dates but deciding not to disturb the inter-se seniority established by the selecting authority. The Court's decision was influenced by the significant passage of time and the promotions already earned by the candidates.