2000 (5) TMI 1041 - SC - Indian Laws

Selection procedures - corrigendum issued whereby the upper age limit was increased to 42 years in the advertisement for selection of School Master/Mistresses and for ETT/JBT teachers - Held that - All the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court, to the extent of which it has dismissed the writ petitions filed by such petitioners who were the selected candidates, is set aside. It is directed that such of the selected candidates as have already been issued appointment letters shall forthwith be issued posting orders at the earliest, say within a maximum period of two months from the date of this order. Those who have already been posted shall continue with their appointments. The appeals and the writ petition are disposed of accordingly. No order as to the costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility criteria for applicants.
2. Determination of cut-off date for eligibility.
3. Validity of applications and selection process.
4. Impact of corrigendum on eligibility.
5. Government's actions and High Court's orders.
6. Relief for selected candidates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility Criteria for Applicants:
The advertisement dated 12.1.1996 invited applications for 3025 teacher posts, specifying educational qualifications and age limits. Applicants were required to have specific educational qualifications by the last date for application submission, initially set as 15.2.1996. A corrigendum issued on 7.10.1996 extended the upper age limit to 42 years as of 1.1.1996, allowing overage candidates to apply by 30.10.1996.

2. Determination of Cut-off Date for Eligibility:
The core issue was the determination of the cut-off date for eligibility. The High Court ruled that the cut-off date for educational qualifications was 15.2.1996, despite the corrigendum extending the application date to 30.10.1996. The High Court held that eligibility requirements, other than age, should be judged by the original cut-off date.

3. Validity of Applications and Selection Process:
Many applicants did not meet the educational qualifications by 15.2.1996 but did so by 30.10.1996. Despite this, their applications were accepted, and they were called for interviews. Some candidates were allowed to join, while others were denied joining due to non-qualification by the original cut-off date. The Director of Public Instructions issued a memo on 17.3.1997, directing that candidates who acquired qualifications by the interview date be issued appointment orders.

4. Impact of Corrigendum on Eligibility:
The corrigendum extended the application deadline to 30.10.1996 but did not explicitly state that the educational qualifications cut-off date remained 15.2.1996. This ambiguity led to confusion and the acceptance of applications from candidates who qualified by the extended date. The High Court's interpretation that the corrigendum only extended the age limit and not educational qualifications was a key point of contention.

5. Government's Actions and High Court's Orders:
The High Court ordered an enquiry into the selection process, suspecting large-scale selection of ineligible candidates. The enquiry confirmed that 1015 candidates were ineligible by 15.2.1996. The government recalled the memo dated 17.3.1997 and halted the joining of selected candidates. Several writ petitions were filed by affected candidates, leading to the High Court dismissing these petitions based on the original cut-off date.

6. Relief for Selected Candidates:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the prevalent practice in Punjab of determining eligibility by the interview date. Given the ambiguity in the corrigendum and the bonafide actions of the authorities, the Court invoked Article 142 to deliver complete justice. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment for selected candidates. It directed that candidates who received appointment letters be issued posting orders within two months and those already posted continue in their positions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment provided relief to candidates who met eligibility criteria by the extended date, recognizing the confusion caused by the corrigendum and the prevalent practice. The decision emphasized the need for clear cut-off dates in advertisements to avoid such issues in the future.

← Previous Next →