Non-Reportable   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8428 OF 2010 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.8030 OF 2006]

BIMLA DEVI ……. APPELLANT

VS.

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. …… RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

R. V. RAVEENDRAN J.

Leave granted.

2. Applications were invited from eligible candidates, by the Himachal  

Pradesh  Public  Service  Commission  for  filling  up one  post  of  Instructor  

(Dress Making). The essential qualification prescribed for the post was as  

follows :

“Qualification Essential :  

(i) Matric  with  Mathematics  or  its  equivalent  from  a  recognized University/Board.  

(ii) One year National Trade Certificate in Dress Making  and one year National Trade Certificate in Embroidery and Needle Work.  

(iii) Central  Training for Instructor  (CTI)  course of one  year  duration in the related trade i.e.  Dress Making or Embroidery (or  Trades  for  which  Craft  Training  Instructor  Training  facility  is  not  available,  at  least  four  years  experience  in  the  trade  concerned  in  an  Industrial Training Institute and or in reputed Industrial concern).  

(iv) At  least  two  years  experience  in  the  Trade  concerned.”  

3. Out  of  the  60  applications  received,  14  candidates  including  the  

appellant  and  the  fourth  respondent  were  found  eligible  and  called  for  

interview  on  31.5.1999.  The  Himachal  Pardesh  Sub-ordinate  Services  

Selection  Board  (third  respondent)  held  the  interviews  and  selected  the  

fourth  respondent  for  the  post  in  pursuance  of  which  she  was  appointed  

on 8.7.1999.  

4. Being  aggrieved  by  her  non-selection,  the  appellant  filed  an  

application  (OA  No.2406  of  1999)  before  the  Himachal  Pradesh  

Administrative  Tribunal  challenging  her  non-selection.  The  appellant  

contended that the fourth respondent was ineligible for the post and could  

not have been appointed, as she did not have a National Trade Certificate in  

2

Dress  Making,  but  had  only  a  National  Trade  Certificate  in  Cutting  &  

Tailoring. The respondents resisted the petition on the ground that fourth  

respondent  was  recommended  for  the  post  by  the  third  respondent  as  it  

considered that the National Trade Certificate in Cutting & Tailoring was  

equivalent to the National Trade Certificate in Dress Making and that the  

fourth  respondent  had  the  other  requisite  qualifications.  It  was  also  

contended that the training in Cutting & Tailoring trade was virtually the  

same as  training  in  the  Dress  Making trade.  The  Tribunal  dismissed  the  

application filed by the appellant on the ground that the third respondent  

(Sub-ordinate  Services  Selection  Board)  constituted  by  the  State  

Government had found that  the fourth respondent possessed the requisite  

qualifications  and  had  also  found  that  the  National  Trade  Certificate  in  

Cutting  &  Tailoring  held  by  the  fourth  respondent  was  equivalent  to  a  

National Trade Certificate in Dress Making; and that in the absence of any  

mala fides or other irregularities in the process of selection, there could be  

no interference. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in Durga Devi & Anr.   

vs. State of H.P – 1997 (4) SCC 575, which followed the decision in Dalpat   

Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan – 1990 (1) SCC 305.  The appellant  

challenged  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  by  filing  a  writ  petition  before  the  

Himachal Pradesh High Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the  

3

High Court a brief order dated 16.11.2005 that no ground was made out to  

interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The said order of the High Court is  

challenged in this appeal by special leave.  

4. The appellant has produced before this Court the syllabus for Dress  

Making Trade course and syllabus for Cutting & Sewing Trade course. She  

has also produced the minimum qualifications prescribed for admission to  

Cutting & Tailoring course and the minimum qualifications for the Dress  

Making  Trade  course.  These  show  that  both  Dress  Making  course  and  

Cutting & Sewing course are one year courses, but the entry qualification for  

the  two  courses  are  different.  For  Dress  Making  course,  the  minimum  

educational qualification is 10th Class (Pass), whereas for Cutting & Sewing  

course,  the  minimum  educational  qualification  is  8th Class  (Pass).  The  

syllabus for the Dress Making trade is also different from the syllabus of  

Cutting  & Sewing trade,  though there  are  some common  features.  After  

going  through  the  syllabi  for  the  two  courses  and  the  prescribed  entry  

qualification for the two courses, there is no doubt that the Dress Making  

course is qualitatively different from Cutting & Sewing course, though there  

are several common features. If the contention of the respondents that the  

trade of Dress Making and the trade of Cutting & Sewing are the same is  

4

correct,  then  there  was  no  need for  different  training  schemes  for  Dress  

Making and Cutting & Tailoring. There is therefore, considerable force in  

appellant’s contention that the assumption by the respondents that the two  

courses are identical, is not sound. But the appellant did not produce these  

materials (that is syllabi and entry qualifications for the two trades) either  

before the Selection Board, or the Tribunal or the High Court. Further what  

is produced before us is the syllabus for Cutting and Sewing trade course  

and not for Cutting & Tailoring trade course which has been considered to  

be equivalent to the Dress making trade course. Be that as it may.

5. The question is whether the difference between the two courses is so  

material as to invite interference with the decision of the Tribunal affirmed  

by the  High Court.  The Tribunal  has  recorded a  finding of  fact  that  the  

Himachal  Pardesh  Sub-ordinate  Service  Selection  Board  had  bona  fide  

proceeded on the impression that a certificate in Cutting & Tailoring trade  

was equivalent to as a certificate in Dress-Making trade. The Tribunal also  

found  that  there  were  no  mala  fides  or  irregularities  in  the  process  of  

selection  and  the  fourth  respondent  possessed  all  other  required  

qualifications. It is possible that having regard to the job requirements, the  

Selection Board proceeded on the basis that the National Trade Certificate in  

5

Cutting  & Tailoring  is  equivalent  to  National  Trade  Certificate  in  Dress  

Making. It  is  also possible that the Sub-ordinate Service Selection Board  

was not aware of different syllabi being prescribed for the two courses by  

the Directorate-General  of Employment and Training, Govt. of India, and  

had assumed that  they were similar.  Unfortunately,  the appellant  did not  

produce these material (extracted from the Training Manual for Industrial  

Training Institutes) before the Tribunal or before the High Court. Nor did  

she object to the appointment of the fourth respondent by bringing the said  

material to the notice of the Selection Board or the State Government. The  

fourth  respondent  who  has  been  appointed  in  the  year  1999  has  in  the  

meanwhile continued in employment for more than eleven years.  

6. This Court in  Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke (supra), held as follows :   

“It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear  appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize  the  relative  merits  of  the  candidates.  Whether  a  candidate  is  fit  for  a  particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection  Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such  expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with  only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in  the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection,  or proved mala fides, affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in  the  present  case  the  University  had  constituted  the  Committee  in  due  compliance with the relevant status. The Committee consisted of experts  and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material  before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it  aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates  as assessed by the Court,  the High Court went wrong and exceeded its  jurisdiction.”

6

In Durga Devi (supra), this Court held as follows :

“……the selection of the appellants has been quashed by the Tribunal by  itself scrutinising the comparative merits of the candidates and fitness for  the post as if the Tribunal was sitting as an appellate authority over the  Selection Committee. The selection of the candidates was not quashed on  any other  ground.  The Tribunal  fell  in  error  in  arrogating to itself  the  power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and consider the  fitness  and  suitability  for  appointment.  That  was  the  function  of  the  selection committee.”

Therefore, if the Selection Board which prescribed the qualifications for the  

post, bona fide proceeded on the basis that a Trade Certificate in Cutting &  

Tailoring is equivalent to a Trade Certificate in Dress Making, and on that  

basis made the appointment, and that has been accepted by the Tribunal and  

the High Court as proper, we do not consider it a fit case for interference  

after 11 years, even if appellant has made out some difference between the  

two trades.  

7. Another aspect to be noticed is that there is no material to show that if  

fourth respondent had been found to be ineligible, the appellant would have  

been selected for appointment. There were 14 eligible candidates and the  

appellant would not automatically become entitled to appointment even if  

7

there  was  any  infirmity  in  the  selection  and  appointment  of  the  third  

respondent. Be that as it may.  

8. On the peculiar facts and circumstances we do not therefore propose  

to interfere with the appointment of fourth respondent or the decisions of the  

Tribunal  and the High Court affirming the same.  The appeal  is  therefore  

dismissed.  

……………………………..J (R. V. RAVEENDRAN)  

……………………………..J (J. M. PANCHAL)  

New Delhi;  September  30, 2010

8