2015 (3) TMI 1353 - SC - Indian Laws

Selection and recruitment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade-III (PTI Gr. III) - Requisite qualification - whether the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court is correct in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and permitting the qualification of B.P. Ed. to be treated as equivalent to qualification of C.P. Ed. for the purpose of selection and recruitment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade-III (PTI Gr. III)? HELD THAT - The issue noticed at the outset must be decided on the basis of settled law noticed by learned Single Bench that recruitment process must be completed as per terms and conditions in the advertisement and as per rules existing when the recruitment process began. In the present case, the Division Bench has gone to great lengths in examining the issue whether B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. qualifications are equivalent or superior to C.P. Ed. qualification but such exercise cannot help the cause of the Respondents who had the option either to cancel the recruitment process if there existed good reasons for the same or to complete it as per terms of advertisement and as per rules. They chose to continue with the recruitment process and hence they cannot be permitted to depart from the qualification laid down in the advertisement as well as in the rules which were suitably amended only later in 2011 - In such a situation, factual justifications cannot change the legal position that Respondents acted against law and against the terms of advertisement in treating such applicants successful for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. III who held other qualifications but not the qualification of C.P. Ed. Such candidates had not even submitted separate OMR application form for appointment to the post of PTI Gr. III which was essential as per the terms of advertisement. The candidates who were aware of the advertisement and did not have the qualification of C.P. Ed. also had two options, either to apply only for PTI Gr. II if they had the necessary qualification for that post or to challenge the advertisement that it omitted to mention equivalent or higher qualification along with qualification of C.P. Ed. for the post of PTI Gr. III - Having not challenged the advertisement and having applied for the other post, they could not have subsequently claimed or be granted eligibility on the basis of equivalence clarified or declared subsequently by the State Government. The order of the learned Single Judge is restored - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court was correct in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and permitting the qualification of B.P. Ed. to be treated as equivalent to qualification of C.P. Ed. for the purpose of selection and recruitment to the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade-III (PTI Gr. III).

Analysis:

1. Background and Advertisement Details:
The case involved a dispute regarding the qualification requirements for recruitment to the post of PTI Gr. III. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement in 2008 specifying the educational qualifications for the posts under different codes. The advertisement clearly outlined the qualifications required for the PTI Gr. III post, including the need for a Certificate in Physical Education (C.P. Ed.).

2. State Government's Clarification and Result Declaration:
Subsequently, the State Government issued a clarification in 2010, stating that qualifications such as B.P. Ed. and D.P. Ed. could be considered equivalent or superior to C.P. Ed. The Commission then declared the result in 2010, including applicants with B.P. Ed. qualification for PTI Gr. III, leading to dissatisfaction among C.P. Ed. qualified applicants who filed writ petitions against this decision.

3. Judicial Proceedings and Division Bench Interventions:
The matter went through multiple judicial proceedings, with the Division Bench of the High Court intervening on several occasions. The Division Bench remanded the case to the Single Judge for reconsideration, highlighting an amendment in the Rules of 1971. However, the Single Judge reiterated that the recruitment process should adhere to the qualifications specified in the original advertisement.

4. Legal Standpoints and Decision of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. The Appellants contended that changing qualifications mid-recruitment process was unlawful, emphasizing that the rules in place at the time of advertisement issuance should govern the recruitment. The Respondents justified the State Government's clarification based on the scarcity of C.P. Ed. qualified applicants compared to the available vacancies.

5. Supreme Court's Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the recruitment process must adhere to the qualifications mentioned in the initial advertisement and the rules existing at the commencement of the process. The Court criticized the Commission for deviating from the advertised qualifications and including candidates with different qualifications based on a subsequent clarification. It emphasized that equivalence of qualifications must be recognized before the recruitment process starts, and candidates cannot claim eligibility based on clarifications issued post-application.

6. Final Decision and Outcome:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's decision and reinstated the Single Judge's ruling, directing compliance with the original advertisement's qualifications. The appeals were allowed without any costs, affirming the importance of adhering to specified qualifications in recruitment processes.

By thoroughly examining the legal aspects and precedents, the Supreme Court clarified the significance of upholding advertised qualifications and ruled in favor of maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process as per the initial terms outlined in the advertisement.