http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  143 of 2001

PETITIONER: Surinder Singh

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/03/2007

BENCH: A. K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

       The present appeal is filed against the judgment and  order dated 27.09.2000 passed by the High Court of Punjab  and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.13280- CAT/2000.  By the said order, the High Court confirmed the  order recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal,  Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the CAT") in O.A.  No. 171 HR/2000.         Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of this  appeal are thus:         The Government of India, Ministry of Communications,  Department of Posts, respondent No. 1 herein, vide Circular  dated 12.03.1993 revised the educational qualifications for  recruitment to various posts including the post of Extra  Departmental Delivery Agent (for short "EDDA").   As per the  said Circular, the minimum educational qualification for the  post of EDDA, etc. should be 8th standard pass and preference  has to be given to the candidates with Matriculation  qualification.  However, no preference should be given for any  qualification higher than Matriculation.         According to the appellant, the Directorate of Post Offices  issued a letter No.19-17/97-ED & Trg. dated 21.11.1997 to  the Chief Post Master General (CPMG), HR Circle Ambala,  whereby the Department had decided that the merit of  candidates for selection of EDDAs should be prepared on the  basis of the marks obtained in preferential qualification (i.e.  Matriculation) if such candidates are available, otherwise on  the basis of the essential qualification, viz. 8th standard.         The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, North Sub- Division, Kurukshetra-respondent No.3 herein, in compliance  to the letter  of Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurukshetra  Dn. 136118 dated 30.07.1998 notified one post of EDDA to  the Employment Exchange in May 1999.  In response thereto,  the Employment Exchange forwarded the names of some  candidates including the names of the appellant and Dharam  Pal, respondent No.4 herein. The vacancy was also notified  through public advertisement.  In all, 20 candidates applied  for the post.   The case of the appellant is that he qualified his  Matriculation examination from the Board of School  Education, Haryana, in the year 1987 by securing 503 marks  out of 900 (i.e. 55.8%).  The appellant also qualified Senior  Secondary Examination in the year 1991 from the Board of  School Education, Haryana.  It is stated that respondent No.4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

had secured 41% marks in the Matriculation examination.  In  view of the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions issued by  respondent No.1, the merit of the candidates for the post of  EDDA has been prepared on the basis of marks obtained in  the preferential qualifications, viz. Matriculation, and the  Selection Committee selected and appointed the appellant  against the post of EDDA on the basis of merit.         Respondent No.4 challenged the appointment of the  appellant herein before the CAT, Chandigarh Bench,  Chandigarh, inter alia on the ground that as per the Circular,  the minimum qualification was 8th standard and as he has  secured more marks in 8th standard than the appellant, the  appellant could not have been selected on the basis of  preferential qualification for the post in question.           The appellant and the Department contested the claim of  respondent No.4 before the CAT in their separate counter  affidavits.  The CAT quashed the appointment of the appellant  to the post of EDDA vide order dated 24.08.2000 and directed  the respondent-Department to hold a fresh selection in  accordance with law.         Aggrieved by the order of the CAT, the appellant filed the  writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at  Chandigarh, inter alia, on the grounds that while considering  the matter the entire approach of the CAT was wholly  erroneous in law and not sustainable.  According to the  appellant, the CAT has ignored the latest Guidelines/Norms/  Guidelines/Norms/Instructions issued by CPMG, Haryana,  Ambala, a copy whereof was placed on the file of the CAT,  whereby the Competent Authority decided to consider the  selection of the candidates to the post of EDDA on the merits  of preferential qualification, viz. Matriculation.  Further, the  contention of the appellant before the CAT was that  respondent No.4 had no locus standi to challenge the selection  and appointment of the appellant on the basis of the marks  obtained by him in 8th standard examination in comparison to  the marks of the appellant, because if the marks secured in 8th  standard by the candidates were to be taken into  consideration by the Selection Committee, respondent No.4  could not have been selected as there were other candidates,  who had secured more marks than respondent No.4 in the  minimum qualifying examination.  The appellant submitted  before the High Court that the CAT has gone beyond its  jurisdiction by making an attempt to reframe and recast the  Guidelines/Norms/Instructions framed by respondent No. 1 in  prescribing reasonable and appropriate qualifications for a  particular post and in the matters of making the appointment  to the same.         We have perused the impugned order of the High Court.   The High Court, without going into the merit of the case,  dismissed the writ petition in limine, merely on the ground that  it had already disposed of similar matter being CWP  No.11812-CAT of 2000 on 04.09.2000, wherein similar kind of  order recorded by the CAT was challenged.  The observation of  the CAT extracted by the High Court in the order of CWP No.  11812-CAT of 2000 reads as under: "5. We have been taking a view that  preference clause can be operated by any  department where they find that other  things are equal amongst two candidates  who are found most meritorious, may be  having equal marks in the middle  standard.  When other things are equal  amongst such candidates, resort can be  taken to the preference clause and that is  only situation where it can be operated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

and enforced."                  The High Court based upon the above extracted  observation has held:  "Without calling upon the other side, we  are of the view that where the Tribunal has  used the words that circular dated November  27, 1997, was being struck down, it was in the  sense that the way the petitioners had  interpreted the circular it was not well founded  and the interpretation of the circular should be  as given in para 5 of the judgment of the  Tribunal, which has already been quoted  above.  We, as a matter of abundant caution,  hold that the circular dated November 27,  1997, will not stand quashed but the  petitioners will implement the same in the  manner as interpreted by the Tribunal in para  5 of the judgment which has already been  quoted above."           Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant is  before this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and  having examined in detail the material on record, we are of the  view that the order of the High Court maintaining the order of  the CAT is wrong and cannot be sustained.         We have perused the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions  dated 24.03.1993 formulated by the Government of India,  Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, on the  subject of revision of educational qualifications prescribed for  recruitment to various categories of ED Agents.  Sub-clause  (iv) of Clause 2 of those Guidelines/Norms/Instructions  prescribes that the minimum educational qualifications for ED  Delivery Agents, ED Stamp Vendors and other categories of  ED should be 8th standard.  Preference may be given to the  candidates with Matriculation qualification.  However, it is  specified that no preference should be given for any  qualification higher than Matriculation.  It appears from the  record that the Directorate, Post Offices, vide another Circular  No.19-17/97-ED & Trg. dated 21.11.1997, has decided that  the merit of candidates for selection to the post of EDDA  should be on the basis of the marks obtained in preferential  qualification (i.e. Matriculation) if such candidates are  available, otherwise on the basis of the essential qualification,  viz. 8th standard.    Copies of the latest Guidelines/Norms/Instructions  issued by respondent No. 1 were signed by CPMG, HR Ambala  \026 respondent No. 2 herein who forwarded them to the  Superintendent of Post Offices in his Division.  Superintendent  of Posts, Kurukshetra, Dn. 136118 circulated the Circular of  respondent No. 1 to all recruiting units established in his  Division for information and necessary action.  Consequently,  Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, North Division,  Kurukshetra \026 respondent No. 3 herein issued requisition to  the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of eligible  candidates for filling up the post of EDDA.  In addition,  applications were invited from open market through public  notice.  In all, 20 candidates including the appellant and  Dharampal \026 respondent No. 4 herein appeared before the  Selection Committee constituted for the selection to the post of  EDDA.  The Selection Committee had selected the appellant on  the basis of the preferential qualification because he has,  admittedly, secured 55.8% marks in comparison to respondent  No. 4 who secured 41% marks in the Matriculation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

examination.  It is not in dispute that the requisite minimum  qualification for the post of EDDA has been prescribed as 8th  standard.  The selection of the appellant has been made by the  Selection Committee strictly in accordance with the latest  Guidelines/Norms/Instructions framed by the Department  from time to time.  These Guidelines/Norms/Instructions clearly stipulate  that if the candidates, who have passed Matriculation  examination, are available for selection to the posts of EDDA,  the selection should be made by the Selection Committee on  the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in  preferential qualification (i.e. Matriculation) and in the  absence of Matriculate candidates, the selection has to be  made on the basis of essential qualification, viz. 8th standard.   It appears that the CAT as well as the High Court, both have  lost sight of the object and import of the  Guidelines/Norms/Instructions dated 21.07.1998 laid down  by a Competent Authority.  The CAT is not competent to lay  down criteria for the selection and appointment to the post of  EDDA.  It is the prerogative and authority of the employer to  lay down suitable service conditions to the respective posts.   In our view, in service jurisprudence the prescription of  preferential qualification not only refers to numeric superiority  but is essentially related to better mental capacity, ability and  maturity to shoulder the responsibilities, which are entrusted  to the candidates after their selection to a particular post.  All  the more, it is important for efficient and effective  administration.  The basic object of prescribing a minimum  qualification is to put a cut off level for a particular job in  accordance with the minimum competency required for the  performance of that job.  The object of prescribing preferential  qualification is to select the best amongst the better  candidates who possess more competence than the others.   Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 puts a limit with respect to  preferential qualification by way of a clear stipulation that no  preference should be given to the qualification above  Matriculation.  Hence, the preferential qualification was  considered to be more effective and efficient and also it was a  clear assumption that a candidate possessing the same is best  suited for the post in question.  Shri U.S. Puria, Assistant Director General (ED),  Department of Posts, New Delhi, in his counter affidavit filed  on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has stated that Dharam  Pal, respondent No. 4, was appointed provisionally as EDDA  by the Area Sub-Divisional ASPOs with effect from 26.04.1997  on compassionate ground in place of his father Babu Ram who  died on 26.04.1997 while working as EDDA, Tangore, B.O. in  Kurukshetra.  He stated that the appointment of respondent  No. 4 was subject to the approval of Chief Post Master  General, Haryana Circle, Ambala.  Respondent No. 4 worked  as EDDA from 26.04.1997 to 31.03.1999.  The Circle Selection  Committee later on has found that two sons of the deceased  Babu Ram were already in employment, therefore, the claim of  respondent No. 4 for appointment to the post of EDDA on  compassionate grounds was rejected.  The charge of EDDA,  Tangore B.O., Kurukshetra was handed over to Budh Singh, a  regular ED employee of Kurukshetra Division, who was on  deputation to Army Postal Service and discharged from the  said service on 15.03.1999.  Budh Singh joined service on  31.03.1999 when respondent No. 4 was relieved from the job.   However, Budh Singh absented from the duty  w.e.f. 1.4.1999.   Departmental proceedings were initiated against Budh Singh  as per the Rules.  Finally, Budh Singh was removed from the  service by the Competent Authority vide order dated  15.09.1999.  In these circumstances, the post of EDDA was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

notified to the Employment Exchange and general public by  the respondent-Department.  The respondent Nos. 1 and 2  had justified the selection and appointment of the appellant on  the basis of marks secured by him in Matriculation  examination, which according to them is a preferential  qualification, as per the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions  prescribed by the Competent Authority.   In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar and  Anr. [(1993) 2 SCC 310], this Court in paragraph 13 held as  under: "13. ..\005\005..There is nothing arbitrary or  unreasonable in the employer preferring  a candidate with higher qualification for  service.  It is well settled by a catena of  decisions that classification on the basis  of higher educational qualification to  achieve higher administrative efficiency is  permissible under our constitutional  scheme."

       Further, in paragraph 15 it is observed as under:          "15. \005\005...\005\005\005\005It is true that  notwithstanding the preference rule it is  always open to the recruiting agency to  prescribe a minimum eligibility  qualification with a view to demarcating  and narrowing down the field of choice  with the ultimate objective of permitting  candidates with higher qualifications to  enter the zone of consideration."         

In view of the above-stated factual situation and settled  position of law, the orders of the CAT as well as the High Court  cannot be sustained. For the above-said reasons, the appeal is, accordingly,  allowed.        The judgment and order dated 27.09.2000 of the  High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP  Nos.13280-CAT/2000 confirming the order of the CAT,  Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, in O.A. Nos.171 HR/2000 is  quashed and set aside.  Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to  take necessary steps for facilitating the resumption of the  duties of the appellant on the post of EDDA.  In the facts and  circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.