ORDER
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. The petitioners question the order dated 4th May, 2000 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.6121 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent herein.
2. The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent herein belongs to the Scheduled Caste. She possesses I Class Bachelor degree in Library and Information Science (BLIS) from a recognised University. A vacancy meant for Scheduled Caste woman was notified, wherefor the
Employment Exchange was notified. It was report that there was no OC category candidate possessing BLIS Examination. The name of the respondent herein was forwarded by the Employment Exchange. She had not been appointed only on the ground that she does not hold the qualification of CLIS. It is not in dispute that so far as course of CLIS is concerned, the same is a six-months’ course whereas BLIS is a course for Basic Librarian post, the duration whereof is one year.
3. Learned Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the petitioners would urge that keeping in view the fact that a particular qualification was notified as minimum qualification, the respondent herein cannot be said to have fulfilled the criteria laid down in the recruitment notification. We are afraid, having regard to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. The State is considered to be a model employer, as has been held by the apex Court in H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India, . It is really curious that the State has taken such an unreasonable stand. Person having a better qualification cannot be denied appointment on the ground that the minimum qualification required is something else. Prescription of a minimum qualification is necessary so that all candidates must hold atleast that qualification. But the same does not mean that a person with a higher qualification would not meet the requirement. In Y. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah, , the Apex Court, while dealing with a case of allotment of Fair-Price Shop, held that preference to an uneducated man over an educated man would amount to allowing premium of ignorance, incompetence and consequent inefficiency. The Apex Court observed that the same would amount to gross arbitrariness resulting in illegal discrimination. Yet again, in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District
and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, 2000 SCC (L&S) 305, the Apex Court clearly held that:
“A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.
We do not think, therefore, that criterion four as laid by the Advisory Committee constituted under the Rules and upheld by the High Court is in any way reasonable or rational. By adopting such a course the High Court has put its stamp of approval to another type of reservation for recruitment to the service which is not permissible. A poor person can certainly acquire qualification equivalent to SSC Examination and not that he cannot go beyond Standard VII. Perhaps by restricting appointment to a candidate having studied only upto Standard VII the High Court may not be encouraging dropouts.”
4. In view of the afore mentioned authoritative pronouncement, we have no other option but to hold that the impugned judgment is unassailable. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Having regard to the fact that the attitude of the petitioners was wholly unreasonable as a result whereof, the respondent had to remain unemployed for a long time, we are of the opinion that the petitioners should bear the cost of the litigation of the respondent, which is assessed at Rs.2,000/-.
