1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3137 OF 2011
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.18128 OF 2009]
University of Jammu ... Appellant
Versus
T.S. Khan & Others ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Aftab Alam,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment
passed by a Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir
High Court by which it has allowed the intra-court
appeal filed by respondent No.1, set aside the
judgment and order passed by a single Judge of the
High Court dismissing his Writ Petition and
directed the appellant-University to give seniority
2
to respondent No.1 on the post of Assistant
Registrar and to pay him the salary for that post
from the date respondents 4 and 5 were appointed to
the post of Assistant Registrar.
3. The recruitment to the post of Deputy Registrar
is to be made in the ratio of 75% by direct
recruitment and 25% by promotion and for the post
of Assistant Registrar in the ratio of 50% by
direct recruitment and 50% by promotion on the
basis of merit-cum-seniority from amongst eligible
Section Officers and P.A.1-cum-Stenographers in the
ratio of 2:1 respectively. The appellant-
University on March 1, 1996 issued an advertisement
for filling up the posts of Deputy Registrar and
Assistant Registrar by direct recruitment. The
minimum qualification prescribed for appointment as
Assistant Registrar was as under:-
“Assistant Registrar
A post-graduate Degree with at least
55% marks or its equivalent grade. Other
things being equal, preference may be
given to candidate having knowledge of
computer applications.
3
Note:- In service employees of the
University holding Bachelor’s Degree in
any discipline and fulfilling other
prescribed conditions shall be eligible to
compete for appointment to the post of
Assistant Deputy Registrar.”
4. Respondent No.1, who was an employee of the
University, made applications both for the posts of
Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. The
Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose,
on a consideration of the merit, suitability,
academic qualification, experience and performance
of the candidates in the interview prepared a
select list on May 26, 1996 in which respondent
No.1 was placed at rank XIII. Respondents 4 and 5
were placed in the select list at ranks IV and V
respectively. On the basis of the select list,
prepared by the Selection Committee, respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed as Assistant
Registrars. About two years later, respondent No.1
filed a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.1094 of
1998) seeking to challenge the appointments made in
pursuance of the advertisement and claiming that
4
persons inferior to him in qualification and merit
were appointed on the two posts.
5. The Writ Petition was opposed by the
University. The University took the stand that
under the University statute the eligibility for
appointment as Assistant Registrar for an in-
service employee was that he should either be a
Section Officer or P.A.-cum-Stenographer and hold a
Bachelor’s degree in any discipline. It was
pointed out that respondent No.1 was neither a
Section Officer nor a P.A.-cum-Steno. He was
working only as Head Assistant which post was one
step lower to the post of Section Officer in the
University. It was, accordingly, submitted that
respondent No.1 was ineligible for appointment to
the post of Assistant Registrar. It was further
pointed out that respondent No.1 had only 54.03%
marks in the post-graduation degree and for that
reason too he was not eligible.
6. On a consideration of all the material facts
and circumstances, a single Judge of the High Court
5
dismissed the Writ Petition by judgment and order
dated May 31, 2001.
7. Against the judgment passed by the single
Judge, respondent no.1 filed an intra-court appeal
(LPASW No.202/2001) which was allowed by the
judgment and order dated April 24, 2009 by the
Division Bench. The Division Bench found and held
that respondent No.1 was not eligible to be
considered for the post of Deputy Registrar and,
hence, rejected his case in so far that post is
concerned. Coming, however, to the post of
Assistant Registrar, the Division Bench took the
view that Selection Committee had not assigned any
reason for putting respondent nos. 4 and 5 above
respondent No.1 in the select list. It seems to
have called for the documents relating to the
selection process and, making its own assessment on
going through the records, made the impugned
direction. In this regard, the Division Bench
stated as follows:-
6
“In the background of what we have
stated, i.e. the appellant was entitled,
in terms of the notice, to be considered
for appointment as Assistant Registrar
since he was holder of Bachelors Degree
and an in-service employee of the
University, the appellant was entitled to
compete for the post of Assistant
Registrar. The only thing that was
required to be seen was whether the
selection committee assessed the merit of
the appellant higher than respondent Nos.4
and 5. We, accordingly, called for the
records and the same were produced, which
only suggested preparation of a select
list where the position of the appellant
is below the respondents 4 and 5. No
material has been produced before us to
show that it is the selection committee
which upon assessment of merit of the
appellant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5,
found appellant was less meritorious than
the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. We wanted to
know whether, apart from the select list,
is there any other record which would
suggest assessment of such merit. There
answer to our query was a clear no. In
the circumstances, the logical conclusion
would be that there is nothing to suggest
that the merit of the appellant was
assessed less better than the respondent
Nos. 4 and 5.”
8. It appears to us that the Division Bench
followed a procedure for which there is no sanction
in law. In the first place the Division Bench
overlooked that according to the statutory
eligibility criterion only a Section Officer or a
7
P.A.-cum-Stenographer was eligible to be considered
for appointment as Assistant Registrar and
respondent No.1 was a Head Assistant. Moreover,
the Division Bench was in error in sitting over the
select list prepared by the Selection Committee as
an Appellate Authority and re-arranging the select
list prepared by a Committee of experts on the
basis of its own valuation. The Division Bench
seems to have overlooked that while respondent Nos.
4 and 5 were at ranks IV and V in the select list,
respondent No.1 was at rank XIII and by brining him
at par with respondent nos. 4 and 5, the Division
Bench clearly ignored the claims of the seven
candidates who figured in between from rank VI to
XII and who were above respondent No.1.
9. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going
through the materials on record, we are satisfied
that the impugned order passed by the Division
Bench is wholly unsustainable. It is, accordingly,
set aside. The appeal is allowed but with no order
as to costs.
8
…………………………………J.
(Aftab Alam)
…………………………………J.
(R.M. Lodha)
New Delhi;
April 8, 2011.