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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7244 of 2005

PETITIONER: Umrao Singh

RESPONDENT: Punjabi University, Patiala, & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2005

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17044 of 2005) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7245 OF 2005 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18092 of 2005)

                                               AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7246-7247 OF 2005 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 18993-94 of 2005)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7248 OF 2005 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.25298 of 2005)                                         CC No. 11226 of 2005

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

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

       Punjabi University, Patiala through its Registrar  issued an advertisement in the newspapers 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 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 the University are as follows:

"(a)    The basic qualification for the post of

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

Lecturers is MA in defence Strategic Studies  and eligibility test for the Lecturership  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)    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 examination  from language Department, Punjab Patiala  before appearing for interview."

       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 qualified  at eligibility test for Lecturership in University and  Colleges, conducted by University Grants Commission. 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. 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 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 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 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 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

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

his matriculation examination in Punjabi language.   Accordingly, the selection of Umrao Singh, Kewal Krishan  and Inderjeet Singh was quashed.

       In support of the appeals learned counsel for the  appellants submitted 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  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)     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 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 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 in terms of the Syndicate  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 better 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 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.  From the stand of the University  and the documents annexed, it is clear that Umrao Singh  submitted his thesis on 16.9.2002 which was within the  period of eligibility.  That being so, the High Court was  not justified in accepting the stand of Ajay Sondhi that the  thesis was submitted on 23.9.2002.  By referring to a wrong  date the selection of Umrao 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 Inderjeet Singh is concerned there

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

was no challenge to his selection and, further the High  Court indicated no reason as to how 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 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 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  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  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 Bhimrao Mandve and Ors. (2001 (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 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).      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 Inderjeet 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 which was  permitted to be continued shall be finalized, after giving

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

effect to the present judgment.