M.D Tnstc & Anr vs R.S.Kavitha & Ors
- CitationAIRONLINE 2013 SC 472
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Relaxation of minimum qualifications prescribed in recruitment rules cannot be granted by courts unless such relaxation is expressly provided for in the recruitment rules themselves and has been given due publicity in the notification inviting applications; to do so would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as candidates not meeting the prescribed qualifications would have been deterred from applying. A qualification that is not mandatory under the recruitment rules or statutory instructions may be waived, and a candidate otherwise meeting all prescribed qualifications may be considered for appointment even if such non-mandatory qualification was not produced at the time of interview, provided it is produced subsequently.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
R.S.Kavitha & Ors. ..Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
3. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 – R.S.Kavitha does not fulfill the height qualification as prescribed for appointment to the post of Conductor under Rule 59(b) of the Appendix-III of the Service Rules. In spite of respondent No.1 – R.S.Kavitha not fulfilling the aforesaid qualification, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant-Corporation to consider her candidature, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
4. We are unable to subscribe to the views expressed by the High Court. Such relaxation in the height qualification unless provided for in the recruitment rules and given due publicity in the notification inviting applications would be in violation of the Rules. This apart, it would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as numerous other candidates, who would be below the prescribed height, might have not applied for the advertised post. The impugned judgment of the High Court does indicate the existence of any provision of relaxation of the minimum height criteria. The learned counsel for the respondents has also not pointed out any provision in the recruitment rules providing for relaxation of any qualification. Therefore, it is not possible to uphold the direction in relation to Respondent No.1. So far as respondent No.2 – M.Revathi is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that her candidature was rejected only because she had failed to produce the necessary certificate showing that she was qualified to administer First Aid, at the time of interview. This is not a mandatory requirement either under the recruitment rules or any statutory instructions. In any event, learned counsel for the appellants has accepted that her candidature can be considered, provided she produces the necessary certificate even at this stage. It is accepted that she fulfils the prescribed qualifications under the rules. In view of the above, we see no reason as to why her candidature cannot be considered upon such a certificate being produced by respondent No.2 – M.Revathi.
5. The impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained so far as it relates to respondent No.1 and the same is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
…………………………………………………….J [Surinder Singh Nijjar]
…………………………………………………J. [Anil R. Dave]
New Delhi;
January 18, 2013.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free