2000 (2) TMI 884 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the recruitment criteria for the selection of peons.
2. Reasonableness and arbitrariness of the fourth criterion laid by the Advisory Committee.
3. Applicability of higher educational qualification as a basis for classification in recruitment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the recruitment criteria for the selection of peons.

Appellants challenged the selection process for peons in the Subordinate Judiciary, asserting it was contrary to the relevant recruitment rules for Class III and IV services in Maharashtra. The Recruitment Rules mandated that the District Judge, with the advice of an Advisory Committee, prepare a list of candidates based on seniority. The educational qualification for peons was set at not lower than a pass in the Standard IV examination in the regional language.

Issue 2: Reasonableness and arbitrariness of the fourth criterion laid by the Advisory Committee.

The fourth criterion under challenge stipulated that candidates with education above Standard VII should not be considered for the post of peons. The High Court upheld this criterion, reasoning that candidates with higher qualifications might not take proper interest in peon work and could feel it beneath their dignity. However, the Supreme Court found this criterion unreasonable and arbitrary, stating that higher qualifications should not disqualify a candidate and that the Recruitment Rules themselves provided for promotion opportunities for peons.

Issue 3: Applicability of higher educational qualification as a basis for classification in recruitment.

The Supreme Court referenced several precedents, including Government of A.P. v. P. Dilip Kumar and T.R. Kothandaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage BD, which supported the principle of short-listing and higher educational qualifications as a basis for classification. However, the Court noted that these principles were not correctly applied by the High Court in this case. The Court emphasized that a criterion denying candidates their right to be considered for a post based on higher qualifications is irrational and constitutes an impermissible form of reservation.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the fourth criterion but did not disturb the appointments already made from the select list. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.