Telangana High Court

G.Uma Shankar, vs State Of Telangana, on 13 February, 2024

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K.Lakshman, P.Sree Sudha

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                                 AND

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

     WRIT APPEAL Nos.433, 468, 1041, 1056, 1060 and
                            1091 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara and Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu,

learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned

Senior Counsel representing Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2.

2. The lis in all the aforesaid writ appeals is common. Therefore,

the same were heard and decided by way of this common order.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders dated

04.01.2021 in W.P.No.24567 of 2020 and 06.12.2022 in

W.P.No.19981 of 2020, unsuccessful writ petitioners preferred the

present intra Court appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

4. Appellants/Writ Petitioners in all the aforesaid appeals filed the

aforesaid writ petitions seeking Mandamus to declare the action of

respondents in not selecting them for the post of Junior Lineman in

pursuance to notification No.01 of 2019 dated 28.09.2019 issued by

respondent No.2 even though they successfully completed written

examination, pole climbing test for the post of Junior Lineman as

illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue

appointment orders to them forthwith.

5. The writ petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petitions contending

as follows:

(i) Respondent No.2 had issued Notification No.01/2019

dated 28.09.2019 calling applications from the eligible candidates for

recruitment for the post of Junior Lineman.

(ii) The entire process of recruitment is online.

(iii) The dates for payment of submission of application etc

are specifically mentioned below:-

"Starting date for Payment of Fee ---- 21.10.2019

Starting date of application submission ---- 22.10.2019

Last date for payment of Online Fee ---- 10.11.2019 (upto 05.00pm)

Last date for submission of Online Application ---- 10.11.2019(upto 11.59 pm)

Downloading of Hall tickets from ---- 05.12.2019

Date of examination ---- 15.12.2019"

6. They possess requisite qualification and they have eligibility

criteria in terms of the said notification dated 28.09.2019 for the post

of Junior Lineman. Therefore, they have submitted online

applications and paid requisite fee. After thorough verification of

Certificates, respondent No.2 had issued Hall Tickets. They have

appeared for written examination on 15.12.2019 and cleared it. They

have also cleared pole climbing test. Even then their names were not

found in the provisional list of candidates displayed by respondent

No.2 on 08.10.2020. On enquiry, they came to know that respondent

No.2 has not mentioned the names of the writ petitioners in the

provisional list of candidates on the ground that they do not possess

requisite qualification as on the date of notification i.e. 28.09.2019.

7. They further contended that, they possess requisite qualification

i.e. I.T.I as on the last date of application. On consideration of the

same only, respondent No.2 has issued hall tickets to them and

permitted them to appear for written examination. All the appellants

cleared the written examination as well as pole climbing test. Even

then respondent No.2 did not mention the names of the writ petitioners

in the provisional list displayed on 08.10.2020. Therefore, the action

of respondents in not selecting the writ petitioners for the post of

Junior Lineman pursuant to notification dated 28.09.2019 is illegal

and they are entitled for appointment orders.

8. Respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit contending that

subject notification was issued on 28.09.2019. Clause 3 of the said

notification deals with Educational Qualifications and as per which

the petitioners must possess the qualifications from a recognized

Institution/BOARD as on the date of notification. The petitioners

do not possess the said required qualifications as on the date of

notification. They have appeared in the examination i.e. I.T.I

(Electrician Trade) from National Council for Vocational Training

(NCVT), Delhi and also passed All India Trade Test in July, 2019.

Therefore, they are not eligible for appointment as Junior Lineman

pursuant to the said notification dated 28.09.2019. Though

Educational Qualification is specifically mentioned, the applicants

have submitted the applications through online and since it is online

process, considering the applications uploaded by the writ petitioners,

respondent No.2 has issued hall tickets, permitted them to appear in

the written examination and also pole climbing test. During

verification of certificates, respondent No.2 found that the writ

petitioners do not possess requisite qualification as on the date of

notification. Therefore, their names were not mentioned in the

provisional selection list displayed on 08.10.2020. Writ petitioners

are not entitled to participate in the recruitment. There is no

irregularity in the action taken by respondent No.2 in not mentioning

the names of the writ petitioners in the provisional selection list

displayed on 08.10.2020. The writ petitioners who do not possess

requisite qualification as on the date of notification and knowing the

said fact very well, filed the present writ petitions. On considering

the said facts, vide impugned orders dated 04.01.2021 and

06.12.2022, learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions.

There is no error in it.

9. Vide impugned orders dated 04.01.2021 in W.P.No.24567 of

2020 and 06.12.2022 in W.P.No.19981 of 2020, learned Single Judge

dismissed the said writ petitions holding that applicants do not possess

requisite qualification as on the date of notification, they are not

entitled for consideration of their cases for appointment to the posts of

Junior Lineman in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. Government of NCT, Delhi 1.

Assailing the said orders, unsuccessful writ petitioners preferred the

present appeals, except appellant in W.A.No.1060 of 2023. It is

(2013) 11 SCC 58

relevant to note that appellants in W.A.No.1060 of 2023 sought leave

to prefer appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge

contending that they posess requisite qualification, applied and

appeard in the written exam and cleared it. They are also standing on

the same footing like writ petitioners. Thus, granted leave to

appellants.

10. Sri Chandraiah Sunkara and Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned

counsel for the appellants would contend as follows:-

(i) Learned Single Judge ought to have considered the last

date for receipt of online applications was up to 11.59 pm on

10.11.2019 by which date the writ petitioners are having requisite

qualification.

(ii) Learned Single Judge failed to consider that there was a

precedent in respondent No.2 company to appoint the candidates who

are qualified as on the last date for submission of the applications. In

respect of 2006 Junior Lineman Notifications, last date for receipt of

applications was 17.11.2006, the candidates who were qualified as on

17.11.2006 were appointed as Junior Lineman. Therefore, the

respondents cannot take a different stand in the present case.

(iii) Learned Single Judge failed to consider the principle laid

down by Apex Court in Shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar 2,

Dipitmayee Parida v. State of Orissa 3, Full Bench Judgment of this

Court in Public Interest Litigation reported in 2006 (2) ALD 1

(FB).

(iv) Learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that

different cut-off dates were prescribed for different aspects in the

notification dated 28.09.2019.

(vii) Learned Single Judge ought to have considered the last

date for submission of online application for the purpose of

educational qualification as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid judgments. All the writ petitioners are meritorious

candidates. They have cleared the written examination as well as pole

climbing test. There are vacancies. The respondents are trying to fill

up the said vacancies with less meritorious candidates than the writ

petitioners.

11. Due to floods in Kerala, candidates filed Writ Petition before

Kerala High Court and vide order dated 10.05.2019 in W.P.(C)

No.13450 of 2019, Kerala High Court directed The Director General

2003 (9) SCC 519

2008 (10) SCC 687

Of Training, National Council For Vocational Training, Ministry Of

Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, New Delhi to postpone the

exams. Pursuant to the said order dated 10.05.2019, exams were

postponed. There was a delay due to Covid-19 circumstances. The

respondents have issued fresh notification for the unfilled vacancies

and candidates have challenged the said notification and this Court

granted stay of all further proceedings purusant to the said

notification. The action of respondents is in violation of articles 14,

16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

12. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.

K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that

as per the notification dated 28.09.2019, the petitioners must possess

the requisite qualification as on the date of notification which they do

not possess. Though they are claiming that they appeared for the

examinations with regard to requisite qualification i.e. I.T.I from

NCVT, their results were declared only on 05.11.2019 and

memorandum of marks were issued only on 05.11.2019. Therefore,

writ petitioners do not possess requisite qualification as on the date of

notification i.e. 28.09.2019. On consideration of the said aspects and

also law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar

Sharma (Supra), learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. It

is a reasoned order and there is no error in it. Writ petitioners who do

not possess requisite qualification as per the notification, cannot claim

equities and cannot rely on the earlier decisions. Therefore, there is

no error in the action of the respondent No.2 in not mentioning the

names of the writ petitioners in the provisional selection list displayed

on 08.10.2020 and in the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge.

Knowing very well that writ petitioners do not possess requisite

eligibility criteria as on the last date of notification, they have filed the

aforesaid writ petitions and the present writ appeals.

13. In the light of the aforesaid submission, the undisputed facts in

the present case are:-

a) Respondent No.2 had issued notification No.01/2019

dated 28.09.2019 calling applications from the eligible candidates for

the post of Junior Lineman.

       b)      The entire process is online.


       c)     The schedule is as follows:-


"Starting date for Payment of Fee             ----   21.10.2019

Starting date of application submission       ----   22.10.2019



Last date for payment of Online Fee            ----    10.11.2019 (upto 05.00pm)

Last date for submission of Online Application ----    10.11.2019(upto 11.59 pm)

Downloading of Hall tickets from              ----    05.12.2019

Date of examination                           ----    15.12.2019"

(d) Clause (2) of the said notification says the candidates who

possess requisite qualification may apply online by satisfying

themselves about the terms and conditions of the recruitment.

(e) Clause (3) of the said notification deals with Educational

Qualifications. It says that the applicants` must possess the

qualifications from a recognized Institution/BOARD as detailed below

or equivalent thereto, "as on the date of Notification".

(f) For Junior Lineman Post, candidates must possess

SSLC/SSC/10th Class with I.T.I qualification in electrical

Trade/Wireman or 2 years Intermediate Vocational course in

Electrical Trade only from a recognized Institution/Board of

combined A.P/Telangana State Education Department "as on the

date of Notification".

14. Certain clauses of note of the said notification are relevant

and the same are extracted below:

(1) TSSPDCL is not responsible for any discrepancy in Bio-data particulars while submitting the application form through On-line.

The applicants are therefore advised to strictly follow the instructions and User guide on their own interest before submitting the application.

(2) The particulars furnished by the applicant in the Application Form will be taken as final and data is processed based on these particulars only by Computer. Candidates should therefore, be very careful in Uploading / Submitting the Application Form On-line.

(3) Incomplete / Incorrect Application Form will be summarily rejected. The information if any, furnished by the candidate subsequently in any form will not be entertained by TSSPDCL under any circumstances. Applicants should be careful in filling-up the application form and submission. If any lapse is detected during the scrutiny, the candidature will be rejected even though he comes to the final stage of recruitment process or even at a later stage.

(4) Before Uploading / required to go into submission of Application and should care Application Form, the candidates are required to go through the detailed notification and should carefully ensure his eligibility for this examination. No relevant column of the Application Form should be left blank, otherwise application form will be rejected.

15. It is also mentioned in the said notification that the applicant

should not furnish any particulars that are false, tampered, fabricated

or suppress any material information while making application

through website.

16. Para IV of the said notification deals with General Provisions.

Clause 6 and 7 of the same are relevant and the same are extracted

below:

"6. Important: The claim of the candidates with regard to the date of birth, educational / technical qualifications and community are accepted only provisionally on the information furnished by them in their application from and is subject to the verification and satisifaction of TSSPDCL. Mere admission to any test or

inclusion of the name of a candidate in a merit list will not confer on the candidate any right for appointment. The candidature is therefore provisional at all the stages and TSSPDCL reserves the right to reject candidature at any stage of the selection even after the advice has been made."

"7. TSSPDCL is not responsible, for any discrepancy in submission of application through Online. The applicants are therefore, advised to strictly follow the instructions and User guide in their own interest."

17. In para VIII of the said notification deals with Procedure for

Selection. Clause (G) is relevant and the same is extracted below:

"Provisional selection shall be made at first instance which shall be confirmed later. In the meanwhile, if any adverse information is received about the genuineness of documents/certificates produced, the provisional selection shall be cancelled without notice to the candidate, but such intimation of rejection will be communicated."

18. In para X of the said notification says that TSSPDCL's

Decision to be Final and the same is extracted below:

"The decision of TSSPDCL in all aspects and all respects pertaining to the application and its acceptance or rejection as the case may be, conduct of examination and at all consequent stages culminating in the selection or otherwise of any candidate shall be final in all respects. TSSPDCL reserves its right to alter and modify terms and conditions laid down in the notification for conducting the various stages up to selection, duly intimating details thereof to all concerned, as warranted by any unforeseen circumstances arising during the course of this process, or as deemed necessary by TSSPDCL at any stage."

19. The aforestated clauses of the notification reveals that the

candidates have to go through the instructions scrupulously before

uploading the applications through online. They have to possess the

requisite qualification as on the date of notification i.e. 28.09.2019. In

the event of furnishing any false information, they are not entitled for

selection. Provisional selection list will be issued and in the

meanwhile if respondent No.2 found that the information furnished by

the candidates is false, their selection can be cancelled or their

applications are liable for rejection. TSSPDCL's decision is final.

20. Therefore, the candidates must possess requisite qualification as

on the date of notification. In the present case, the applicants do not

possess the requisite qualification as on the date of notification i.e.

28.09.2019. Though they have appeared for examinations of the

requisite qualification i.e. I.T.I in July and August, 2019, their results

were published only on 05.11.2019/06.11.2019 and memorandum of

marks were issued only on 07.11.2019. Thus, they do not possess

requisite qualification as on the date of notification dated 28.09.2019.

21. The writ petitioners are contending that exams were postponed

due to Covid-19 situation; also due to floods in Kerala and by virtue

of order dated 10.05.2019 in W.P(C).No.13450 of 2019 by Kerala

High Court. However, as on the last date of submission of application

i.e. 10.11.2019, they possess requisite qualification. On consideration

of the said fact only, respondent No.2 has issued hall tickets and

permitted the writ petitioners for written examinations. They have

cleared written examination and also pole climbing test. Therefore,

they are entitled for selection. The said contention of the applicants is

unsustainable. When the notification specifically says that they

should possess requisite qualification as on the date of notification,

they cannot claim that examinations were postponed by NCVT by

virtue passed by Kerala High Court and therefore, they could not clear

the exam as on the date of notification. The said contentions of the

petitioners cannot be accepted.

22. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana 4 considering its

earlier judgments, the apex Court held that eligibility condition should

be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the

Commission. That too in a case where the result of a candidate was

declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications.

As the result does not relate back to the date of examination and

eligibility of the candidates is to be considered on the last date of

submission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has

not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications

would not be eligible.

(1994) 2 SCC 723

23. In M.V. Nair v. Union of India 5, a three Judge Bench of

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the suitability and eligibility have to

be considered with reference to the last date for receiving applications,

unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself

specifies such a date.

24. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director Punjab Institutions 6, the

Apex Court held that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the

last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those

candidates, who possessed all the qualifications as on that date alone

are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment

according to the rules.

25. In Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan 7, the Apex

Court held that in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the

advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to

which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain

date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for

making the applications.

(1993) 2 SCC 429

1995 Supp (4) SCC 706

1993 Supp (3) SCC 168

26. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekher 8 , the Apex

Court with a majority view held in paragraph No.15 as follows:-

"15. The fact is that the appellants did pass the examination and were allowing the appellants to sit for the interview and by their selection on the basis of their comparative merits, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad based as was possible on the basis of qualification. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge was thus based on sound principle with reference to comparatively superior merits, It was in the public interest that better candidates who were fully qualified on the dates of selection were not rejected, notwithstanding that the results of the examination in which they had appeared had been delayed for no fault of theirs. The appellants were fully qualified on the dates of the interview and taking into account the generally followed principle of Rule 37 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, we are of opinion that the technical view adopted by the learned Judges of the Division Bench was incorrect."

27. A three judge bench of Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v.

Chander Shekher 9 reconsidered and explained the judgment of Ashok

Kumar Sharma (supra) reported in (1993) Supp (2) SCC 611 in

paragraph No.6 is relevant and the same is extracted below:

"6. The proposition that where applications are called for B prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications. the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to That date and that date alone, is a well- established one, A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It

1993 Supp (2) SCC 611

(1997) 4 SCC 18

cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment."

6. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, with respect, an impermissible justification. It is, in our considered opinion, a clear error of law and un error apparent on the face of the record. In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the Division Bench of the High Court) was right in holding that the 33 respondents could not have been allowed to appear for the interview."

28. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab 10, the Apex Court

relying on its earlier judgments in paragraph No.13 held as follows:

"13. The High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with."

(2000) 5 SCC 262

29. In State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari 11 the Apex

Court in paragraph No.14 held as follows:

"14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, be void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through Court."

30. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in

Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services

Commission 12and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty 13.

31. In Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra), the Apex Court held that the

candidate fulfilling the requisite qualification has right to be

considered for appointment. In the said case, the appellant therein did

not possess requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the

application though he applied representing that he possessed the same.

The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which was

provisional and conditional subject to the verification of educational

qualification i.e, eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause 11 of

the letter of offer of appointment dated 23.02.2019 made it clear that

(2012) 9 SCC 545

(2008) 7 SCC 153

(2011) 3 SCC 436

in case of character is not certified or he did not possess the

qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition

that emerges from the settled position of law as enumerated above is

that the result of examination does not relate back to the date of

examination. A person would possess qualification only on the date

of declaration of result. Thus, no exemption can be taken to the

judgment of the High Court.

32. The Apex Court further held that there is no obligation on the

Court to protect an illegal appointment.

33. As discussed supra, even in the present case also the writ

petitioners do not possess requisite qualification as on the date of

notification i.e. 28.09.2019. Therefore, they are not eligible for

selection. Writ petitioners who do not possess requisite qualification

as on the date of notification, submitted online applications

representing that they possess the requisite qualification as on the date

of notification, appeared in the written examinations, cannot claim

equities. The aforesaid clauses including selection clause mentioned

by respondent No.2 in the notification dated 28.09.2019 makes it

clear.

34. In S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 14

the Apex Court considered right to equal and fair treatment, duty of

authorities connected with admission, Restitutionary relief in case of

breach/failure, relaxation of cut-off date in exceptional circumstances

and denial of admission to a meritorious candidate. It was a case

where meritorious candidate who has been denied an admission in

MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of

his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that

such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of

his/her. Whereas, the facts of the said case are altogether different to

the facts of the present case. In the present case, the writ petitioners do

not possess requisite qualification as on the date of notification.

35. In State of A.P. v. Bhagam Dorasanamma 15, a Division

Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

"19.The process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains finality with the act of issuing appointment order, offering the post to the selected canddiate. In the absene of reaching the said finality of issuing appointment order in repect of subject vacancy the question of either relinquishment or non-filling of the same does not arise. The interpretation sought to be given by the authorities for denying appointment to the applicant/1st respondent herein is contrary to the very spirit and object of serivce jurisprudence and we find total lack of justifiction on the part of the petitioner auhtoirites and such action undoubtedly tantamounts to transgression

(2020) 17 SCC 465

2013 SCC Online AP 875

of Part III of the Constitution of India in the event of teting the same on the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Whereas in the present case, the facts are altogether different

and that the writ petitioners do not possess requisite qualification as

on the date of notification which is mandatory.

36. In Munja Praveen and Others v. State of Telangana and

Others 16, the Apex Court held that the State has issued G.O.Ms.No.81

admits of only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued

and person appointed does not join, then vacancy cannot be filled on

the basis of waiting list or by operating merit list downwards.

Whereas in the present case, the facts are altogether different.

37. In The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and

Another v. Narimetla Vamshi and Others 17 the Apex Court held as

follows:

"If a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what was required to be done by him as set out herein above, it cannot be construed as a vacancy arising which has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. As to the consequences of the large number of vacancies which have remained on these different accounts, the details of which have been set out herein above, again lend support to this conclusion that a large part of the process is not frustrated by not filling up of the vacancies. Public employment is an important source of employability for young people in the country where we are facing problems of adequacy of jobs; An interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by the appellants would go against the very ethos

(2017) 14 SCC 797

of providing public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled. This would not be an appropriate interpretation."

38. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others v. State of U.P. and

Others 18, paragraph Nos.33 and 39 are relevant and the same are

extracted below:

"33. No doubt, it is true, as indicated by us earlier, that there is a presumption of validity of the State action and the burden is on the person who alleges violation of Article 14 to prove the assertion. However, where no plausible reason or principle is indicated nor is it discernible and the impugned State action, therefore, appears to be ex facie arbitrary, the initial burden to prove the arbitrariness is discharged shifting onus on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable. If the State is unable to produce material to justify its action as fair and reasonable, the burden on the person alleging arbitrariness must be held to be discharged. The scope of judicial review is limited as indicated in Dwarkadas Marfatia's case (supra) to oversee the State action for the purpose of satisfying that it is not vitiated by the vice of arbitrariness and no more. The wisdom of the policy or the lack of it or the desirability of a better alternative is not within the permissible scope of judicial review in such cases. it is not for the courts to recast the policy or to substitute it with another which is considered to be more appropriate, once the attack on the ground of arbitrariness is successfully repelled by showing that the act which was done, was fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. As indicated by Diplock, L.J., in Council of Civil Service Unions v.

Minister for the Civil Service - [1984] 3 All ER 935, the power of judicial review is limited to the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. In the case of arbitrariness, the defect of irrationality is obvious.

39. No doubt, it is for the person alleging arbitrariness who has to prove it. This can be done by showing in the first instance that the impugned State action is uninformed by reason inasmuch as there is no discernible principle on which it is based or it is Contrary to the prescribed mode of exercise of the power or is unreasonable. If this is shown, then the burden is shifted to the

(1991) 1 SCC 212

State to repel the attack by disclosing the material and reasons which led to the action being taken in order to show that it was an informed decision which was reasonable. If after a prima facie case of arbitrariness is made out, the State is unable to show that the decision is an informed action which is reasonable, the State action must perish as arbitrary."

39. But, in the present case, as discussed supra, there is no

irregularity or arbitrariness on the part of respondent No.2. Even the

writ petitioners do not possess requisite qualification as on the date of

notification which is mandatory. The petitioners who do not possess

requisite qualification cannot allege arbitrariness and cannot claim

equities.

40. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority

of India and Others 19, paragraph Nos.20 and 21 are relevant and the

same are extracted below:

"20. Now, obviously where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same constitutional or public law limitations as Government. The rule inhibiting arbitrary action by Government which we have discussed above must apply equally where such corporation is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or otherwise, and it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will, but its action must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance.

21. This rule also flows directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Art. 14. It is now well settled as a result of the decisions of this Court hl E. P. Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu - [1974] 2 SCR 348: (1974) 4 SCC 3 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India - (1978) 1 SCC 248 that Article 14 strikes at

(1979) 3 SCC 489

arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non- discriminatory: it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Article 14 and it must characterize every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory. This principle was recognized and applied by a Bench of this Court presided over by Ray, C.J., in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals v. State of West Bengal (supra) where the learned Chief Justice pointed out that "the State can carry on executive function by making a law or without making a law. The exercise of such powers and functions in trade by the State is subject to Part III of the Constitution. Article 14 speaks of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Equality of opportunity should apply to matters of public contracts. The State has the right to trade. The State has there the duty to observe equality. An ordinary individual can choose not to deal with any person The Government cannot choose to exclude persons by discrimination. The order of black- listing has the effect of depriving a person of equality of opportunity in the matter of public contract. A person who is on the approved list is unable to enter into advantageous relations with the Government because of the order of blacklisting.... A citizen has a right to claim equal treatment to enter into a contract which may be proper, necessary and essential to his lawful calling....It is true that neither the petitioner nor the respondent has any right to enter into a contract but they are entitled to equal treatment with others who offer tender or quotations for the purchase of the goods." It must, therefore follow as a necessary corollary from the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 that though the State is entitled to refuse to enter into relationship with any one, yet if it does so, it cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for entering into such relationship and discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced, but it must act in conformity with some standard or principle which meets the test of reasonableness and non-discrimination and any departure from such standard or principle would be invalid unless it can be supported or justified on some rational and non-discriminatory ground."

41. In the present case there is no arbitrariness or irregularity

committed by respondent No.2 in not displaying names of the writ

petitioners in the provisional selection list displayed on 08.10.2020.

In fact, the writ petitioners do not possess requisite qualification as on

the date of notification which is mandatory. Therefore, the facts of the

said case are altogether different to the facts of the present case.

42. As discussed supra, on consideration of the facts and law,

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. There is no error in

it. Appellants/Writ Petitioners failed to make out any case to interfere

with the said orders.

43. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, viewed from any angle,

Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.