The Supreme Court Bench has observed the eligibility criteria for selection to public posts and held that it should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has set aside the selection of a primary teacher in Jammu and Kashmir who had crossed the upper age limit as per the eligibility criteria.

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjiv Khanna in the case titled The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shaheena Masarat and Anr. dated 29-09-2021 has given their opinion on appointments to a public post.

Facts of the Case:

Rehbar-e-Taleem (Re-T) scheme was floated by the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 28.04.2000 for promoting and decentralizing the management of elementary education with community participation and involvement. According to the scheme, teaching guides (referred as ‘Re-T’) in primary and middle schools were to be appointed to cover for the deficiency of the staff as per existing norms. The selection under the scheme for the primary school at Bundook Khar Mohalla Rainawari was conducted in which 11 candidates applied pursuant to the Notification dated 29.11.2002. Respondent No. 2 was selected for appointment as Re-T. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for quashing order by which Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Re-T.

Single Bench of High Court’s Judgment:

A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by a judgment dated 08.09.2008.

Division Bench of High Court’s Judgment:

DB examined the scheme and noticed that there is no minimum age limit specified and if the words ‘as far as possible’ for upper age limit are interpreted as directory, the officers would have the discretion to select candidates even after they cross 45 years. DB of the HC reversed the finding of Single Bench and held that the teacher who was selected in place of her would also continue in the same capacity.

Submissions of the Appellant (State):

The State has submitted that the High Court committed an error in directing the appointment of Respondent No. 1 and also a continuance of Respondent No. 2. The Respondents were vying for one post of teacher and the High Court could not have directed the appointment of both the Respondents.

Submissions of the First Respondent:

The First Respondent has submitted that the second Respondent had crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years and was not eligible to even apply for an appointment as a teacher. The learned counsel for the first Respondent submitted that SRO 30 of 2003 which relaxed the maximum age for appointment of teacher by 2 years is not applicable to the instant case.

Contentions of the Second Respondent:

Second Respondent has contended that the words ‘as far as possible’ are directory and the authorities had the power to relax the maximum age beyond 35 years. In any event, according to Respondent No. 2, her appointment should not be disturbed at this stage as she has already served for 18 years.

Supreme Court’s observation and Judgment:

After hearing the submissions of the parties, the Apex Court approved the conclusion of the DB.

“Appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections by unfettered discretion being vested in the authorities. Construing the provision relating to upper age limit as directory would be conferring unbridled power in the executive to choose persons of their choice by relaxing the age beyond 35 years. In such case, the provision would have to be declared as unconstitutional.”

The Apex Court has held that 35 years is the upper age limit for appointment as Re-T. The 2nd Respondent who has crossed 35 years on the cut-off date was not eligible for appointment. The High Court has correctly directed the appointment of the 1st Respondent as Re-T.

The Supreme Court has also held that the advertisement in question relates to an appointment to a post of Re-T to which either Respondent No.1 or Respondent No. 2 could have been appointed. The High Court ought not to have directed the appointment of both the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Having set aside the judgment of the Single Judge, the DB of High Court committed no error in directing the appointment of Respondent No.1. The direction issued by the DB of High Court to continue Respondent No.2 is set aside.                                                                                         

Case Details

Case Title: The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shaheena Masarat and Anr

Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Read Judgment

Picture Source :