HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition No. 4944 of 2004
Rakesh Kumar Jaiwal, Bilaspur (C.G.)
....Petitioner
-Versus-
Chhattisgarh Public Service Commisson
....Respondent! Smt. Hamida Siddque, Counse for the petitioner
^ Shri Prashant Mishr, Additional Advocate General
for the State.
HON’BLE SHRI L.C.BHADOO. J.
Dated: 05/01/2005
: Judgment
05-01-2005
Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Prashant Mishra, Additional Advocate General
for the State.
Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner. As the pleadings are complete, therefore,
it was decided to dispose of this matter finally at the
admission stage itself.
By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India the petitioner has
questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of
the order dated 7-12-2004 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the
petitioner’s application for appearing in the interview
for the post of Deputy Director has been rejected by
respondent No.1, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the
requisite experience as per the eligibility criteria.
Brief facts leading to filing of this writ
petition are that on a requisition received from the
Department of Education respondent No.1 herein vide
Annexure-P/2 invited the applications for filling up
the vacancies in the Education Department to the posts
of Deputy Director (Education), D.I.E.T. (District
Institute of Educational Training) Principal and
Lecturers (Education College Cadre). In response to
the said advertisement the petitioner herein also sent
an application for the post of Deputy Director.
However, his application was rejected vide
communication Annexure-P/1 sent by respondent No.1
Public Service Commission on the ground that the
petitioner does not possess the requisite experience.
The controversy involved in this matter is the
interpretation of the eligibility criteria for
appearing in the interview for the post of Deputy
Director. English translation of that reads thus: `(i)
for the post of Deputy Director the candidate must
possess 2nd class post graduation decree of any
recognized University’ and in the experience clause it
has been mentioned that (ii) the candidate must have 10
years teaching experience of Higher Secondary Classes
and minimum 3 years administrative experience.
The case of the petitioner is that as far as first
criteria is concerned, the petitioner possess the
experience of teaching of Higher Secondary Classes and
certificate to that effect is Annexure-P/4 and the same
has not been made ground for rejection of the
application of the petitioner. Further case of the
petitioner is that in the year 1996 he was selected as
Grade-II i.e. Chief Municipal Officer by the Public
Service Commission and since March, 1996 he is working
on that post. Presently, he is working on the post of
Deputy Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Raipur, therefore, as
per the advertisement inviting applications he possess
the requisite experience.
Whereas, reply of the respondent No.1 is that in
order to become eligible for the post of Deputy
Director the candidate must possess 3 years of
administrative experience in the field of Education and
not in other departments, which was the requirement of
the notification dated 9-7-2003. The post of Deputy
Director (Education) is a post of administrative nature
controlling and coordinating various teaching
institutions at the Primary, High and Higher Secondary
level, therefore, any other administrative experience
of any other department cannot be considered to be an
administrative experience for the post of Deputy
Director (Education). Accordingly, a requisition was
sent by the Deputy Director Public Instructions
Chhattisgarh to the Public Service Commission
requesting the Public Service Commission to recruit the
candidate for the post of Deputy Director (Education)
vide Annexure-R/1.
Further case of the respondents is that even
according to Schedule 3 of the M.P. School Education
Gazetted Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982
(hereinafter referred to as `the Rules’) minimum
qualification for the post of Deputy Director
(Education) is Post graduate degree (minimum IInd
Division) Arts, Commerce, Science or equivalent
qualification. 10 years experience administration and
teaching at the Higher Secondary School level of which
at least 3 years must be on the administrative side.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing
reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the matter of Bibhudatta Mohanty V. Union of India and
others reported in 2002 AIR SCW 1379, submitted that in
the advertisement/notification issued by respondent
No.1 Public Service Commission it has nowhere been
mentioned that the administrative experience must be in
the field of education. It has simply been mentioned
in the eligibility criteria that the candidate must
possess minimum 3 years of administrative experience.
While elaborating her arguments, she further submitted
that if we look into the same advertisement for the
posts of D.I.E.T. and Lecturers it has been
specifically mentioned that the administrative
experience must be in the field of education and no
such specific criteria was published for the post of
Deputy Director (Education), therefore, it has to be
interpreted by reading the condition published in a
simple manner and a plain meaning should be given to
the condition published in the advertisement. It
cannot be read otherwise and no casus omissus can be
supplied in order to stretch the meaning administrative
experience to the extent of administrative experience
in the educational field. While relying on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of
Padmasundera Rao (Dead) & Ors. versus State of T.N. &
Ors. reported in 2002 SAR (Civil) 325 she further
submitted that the intention of the Legislation must be
found in the words used by the Legislature itself and
the Court cannot read anything into a statutory
provision which is plain and unambiguous. She further
submitted that in the matter of public employment all
the citizens must be given equal opportunity and they
are entitled to share and it cannot be monopolized for
any particular class.
On the other hand, Shri Prashant Mishra, learned
Additional Advocate General, submitted that as per the
Rules, the eligibility criteria for the post of Deputy
Director is that the candidate must possess 10 years
teaching experience at the Higher Secondary Level and
minimum 3 years administrative experience in the field
of education. Similarly, Education Department sent the
requisition Annexure-R/1 to the respondent No.1 in
which same condition as in consonance with the Rules
was specifically mentioned and based on that Annexure-
R/1 respondent No.1 Public Service Commission
advertised the posts. He further submitted that if the
eligibility criteria which has been published in the
advertisement (Annexure-P/2) is read together, the real
meaning which can be given to the advertisement will be
to the effect that the candidate must possess 3 years
experience in the field of education and not in other
department.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I
have perused relevant documents, rules and case laws
cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. As far as
the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner
that every citizen is entitled for equal opportunity in
the matter of public employment and in the matter of
public employment no post can be monopolized for the
particular class is concerned, argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner is true and same is based on
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, but we
have to see whether the above principle has been
violated in the present case. It cannot be legally
disputed that the Government Public Authorities are
entitled to fix the eligibility criteria for a
particular post and the candidate must possess the
qualification and eligibility criteria fixed by the
Government and only those candidates who possess the
requisite qualification can apply for the post. In
that light we have to examine the present case whether
the eligibility criteria fixed by the respondents in
any way is against the spirit of law.
As far as the matter of Bibhudatta Mohanty (Supra)
cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, advertisement was issued by the employment
exchange for filling up the posts of Extra Departmental
Mail Carriers and in that advertisement for a candidate
to become eligible qualification was fixed as class-8th
and in pursuance of that applications were received and
the candidates were selected and appointed. Those
appointments were challenged by Bibhudatta Mohanty on
the ground that as per the guidelines, apart from the
educational qualification, other condition was that
preference would be given to SSC passed candidates.
Since the selected candidates were not SSC passed
candidates, therefore, the selection was bad.
Considering those facts the Hon’ble Apex Court held in
that matter that since the requisition sent by
respondent No.4 to the Employment Exchange, candidates
having VIII class passed qualification were called for
consideration and in the requisition preference to the
SSC passed candidate was not mentioned. The Hon’ble
Apex Court held that in the first instance in the
requisition sent by the Department to the Employment
Exchange 8th class pass qualification was communicated
and same was published and accordingly candidates were
interviewed and preference clause was not given in the
requisition. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that
the preference clause for higher qualification does not
mean that irrespective of fulfillment of other norms
SSC passed have to be preferred. Where any rule or
guideline provide preference in respect of some higher
qualification, it only means that all other
requirements being equal a person possessing higher
educational qualification will be preferred. It cannot,
however, be considered as the sole criteria for
preference in selection and appointment. Therefore, in
that matter the candidates who were selected, they were
in possession of minimum qualification that is why the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that the selection was not bad.
On the facts this case is of no help to the petitioner.
If we look into the facts of the present case, in
Schedule 3 of the Rules, for the post of Deputy
Director the eligibility criteria is minimum 3 years of
administrative experience in the field of education
apart from 10 years teaching experience and in
consonance with the said Rule the Government sent the
requisition proforma Annexure-R/1 to the respondent
No.1 for filling up the posts and in the experience
clause it was specifically mentioned that 10 years of
educational and administrative experience in which 3
years of experience on administrative side and in the
advertisement which was issued by respondent No.1
Annexure-P/2 it was mentioned that 10 years teaching
experience at the Higher Secondary level and minimum 3
years administrative experience. Therefore, looking to
the requirement of Rules and requisition Annexure-R/1
it cannot be said that the department did not ask for 3
years administrative experience in the field of
education. Conjoint reading of the Rules, requisition
and the advertisement makes it clear that the
administrative experience which has been mentioned in
the advertisement relates to the experience in the
field of education. As has been held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the matter Padmasundera Rao (Dead)
(Supra) that the principle of casus omissus cannot be
supplied by the Court except in the case of clear
necessity and when reason for it is found in the four
corners of the statute itself but at the same time a
casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for
that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must
be construed together and every clause of a section
should be construed with reference to the context and
other clauses thereof so that the construction to be
put on a particular provision makes a consistent
enactment of the whole statute. This would be more so
if literal construction of a particular clause leads to
manifestly absurd or anomalous results which could not
have been intended by the Legislature.’
It is an admitted position that the advertisement
has been issued for the post of Deputy Director
(Education), therefore, the candidate must possess the
requisite administrative experience in the field of
education only so that he can discharge his duties
efficiently and effectively in order to administer the
school education and for that purpose the post is
created. Administrative experience in other fields to
my mind to a great extent cannot be useful for
administration in the educational institutions, as such
only and only interpretation can be given to the
experience clause published in the advertisement
(Annexure-P/2) is that the candidate must have 3 years
of administrative experience in the educational field
and not otherwise that is the only purposive and
meaningful interpretation can be given to the published
criteria condition. Any other interpretation may lead
to absurdity and same will be contrary to the spirit of
the Rules, 1982 and requisition sent by the Government.
As far as the argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that in the same advertisement for post
Nos. 2 and 3 it has been specifically mentioned that
the candidate must possess administrative experience in
the field of education, whereas, for the post No.1 that
is Deputy Director (Education) it has not been
specifically mentioned that the administrative
experience must be in the field of education.
As has been discussed above that the eligibility
criteria which has been published in the Annexure-P/2
same has to be interpreted in consonance with the
requirement of the Rules and the Rules specifically
laid down that for the post of Deputy Director the
candidate must possess 3 years administrative
experience in the field of education, therefore, by not
mentioning the specific word administrative experience
in education, looking to the facts and circumstances of
the case, does not make any difference because first
part of this experience clause is that the candidate
must possess 10 years teaching experience up to Higher
Secondary level and thereafter adding the word “and” it
has been mentioned that the candidate must possess
minimum 3 years administrative experience. Second part
of this has to be read with first part and if both are
read together then only meaning which can be given to
this is that the administrative experience must be in
the field of Education only.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am
of the opinion that as per the advertisement for the
post of Deputy Director (Education) the candidate must
have experience on the administrative side in the field
of education only, as such the Public Service
Commission has rightly rejected the application of the
petitioner.
In the result, I do not find any substance in the
writ petition, same is liable to be dismissed and it is
accordingly dismissed. Cost is made easy.
Certified copy as per Rules.
J u d g e