Supreme Court Upholds Manager Appointments based on Qualifications and Examination Marks

The Writ Appeal challenging the selection of respondents for Manager posts was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The appellant contested the appointments of respondents 4 and 5, arguing that the law had been overruled in a review judgment. However, the Court held that the 4th respondent was qualified by the examination dates and obtained higher marks, following the law applicable at the time of appointment. The Court emphasized that candidates must be fully qualified on the application date. As no other valid points were raised, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the appointments.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to selection of respondents for Manager (Finance and Account) posts.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the selection of respondent 4 and 5 for Manager posts. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition based on a previous Supreme Court judgment. The appellant argued that the law in the previous case was overruled in a review judgment. The posts were advertised in July 1995, and qualifications were specified. The Selection Committee chose respondent 4 for appointment and put respondent 5 on the waiting list. The appellant, who scored lower, contested the appointments. The main contention was that the 4th respondent was not qualified to apply by the cutoff date. The Supreme Court review judgment emphasized that candidates must be fully qualified on the application date, not later. The 4th respondent's appointment was made before the review judgment, following the law at that time.

The Supreme Court's majority judgment in the previous case allowed candidates who became fully qualified before the interview to be considered. However, the review judgment stated that candidates must be qualified on the application date. In this case, the 4th respondent was qualified by the examination dates and obtained higher marks. The court found no other valid points raised by the appellant. Therefore, the Writ Appeal was dismissed, as no interference was warranted based on the law applicable at the time of appointment.

---