MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD).No.13468 of 2013As far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, the Writ Petitioner could not able to establish that she was not possessing the higher qualification of B.E. Degree, as the petitioner has failed to produce any proof to establish the same. The instructions issued to the candidates in the Recruitment Notification is unambiguous that over qualification is a disqualification. The decision already taken by the respondent. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, in this regard is certainly commendable and appreciable. Thus, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
SS
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
- W.P.(MD).No.13468 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
M.Vijayalakshmi … Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The General Manager (HR),
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
(A Joint Venture of Government of India
and Government of Tamil Nadu),
Corporate Office, Harini Towers,
No.7, Conron Smith Road,
Gopalapuram,
Chennai-600 086.
2.The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
3.The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai. … Respondents
* [R2 and R3 are impleaded as suo-motu
impleaded vide order dated 03.12.2020
in W.P.(MD)No.13468 of 2013]
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in Letter No.3459/CMRL/HR/2013, dated 31.07.2013 and quash the same as illegal and violation of Principles of law and further direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Chennai Metro Rail Limited within the stipulated period.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothibasu
For R1 : Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia
For R2 : Mr.P.Mahendran
Addl.Govt.Pleader
O R D E R
The order dated 31.07.2013, rejecting the claim of the Writ Petitioner to select and appoint the petitioner, as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Chennai Metro Rail Limited, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2.The petitioner states that she completed Diploma in Civil Engineering during the year 2010. Thereafter, she joined B.E (Civil Engineering) Degree course in Sethu Institute of Technology at Kariapatti. The first respondent issued a Notification on 01.01.2013, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer (Mechanical/Electrical/Electronic/Civil). The number of vacancies notified for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) was 11. The petitioner submitted her application, for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The Recruitment Notification states that the candidates with B.E/B.Tech or any other higher qualifications are not eligible for selection to the post. At the time of advertisement and at the time of submitting the application, the petitioner had not completed her B.E Degree i.e., on 01.01.2013. Thus, the petitioner states that her qualification was Diploma in Civil Engineering and she was eligible for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The petitioner was successful in passing the written test. Though the petitioner passed in the written test, she had not received any communication to attend the proficiency test. Thus, the petitioner sent a representation. However, the first respondent has not replied to the same.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as on the date of Recruitment Notification as well as the date on which, the petitioner submitted application, she was possessing the qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering and she had not completed the B.E. Course. Thus, the petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer and therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is in violation of the Notification itself and accordingly, the same is to be scrapped.
4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent made a submission that the very idea of the first respondent is to ensure that, over qualified candidates are not appointed. In the event of appointing over qualified persons in the post of Junior Engineer, the Authorities Competent would not be in a position to extract work efficiently and effectively. Thus, the relevant instructions, in respect of the educational qualifications, are very clearly stated in the Notification.
5.Paragraph No.13 of the Notification is “General Instructions” given to the candidates in the matter of process concerning selection and appointment. The relevant instructions, in respect of educational qualifications, reads as under:-
“13(a)-Candidates with B.E/B.Tech or any other higher qualification are not eligible for the above mentioned posts. Candidates with such higher qualification should keep in their mind that their candidature will summarily be cancelled at any time of recruitment or even after appointment in Chennai Metro Rail Limited, If they are found to have suppressed the information of having possessed B.E/B.Tech at the time of filling up the vacancy.
13(f)-Age and Qualification stipulated above should be as on 01.01.2013. The candidates are advised to ensure while applying that they fulfill the eligibility criteria and other requirement mentioned and that the particulars furnished by them are correct in all respects. In case, it is detected at any stage of recruitment process that the candidate does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and /or does not comply with other requirements of this advertisement and / or he/ she has furnished any incorrect or false information or has suppressed any material fact, his/her candidature is liable to be rejected. If any of the above short coming(s) is/are detected even after appointment of his/her services will be terminated without any notice. The definition of Ex-servicemen as defined by Government norms will be followed.”
6.Thus, the candidates, who do not possess B.E/B.Tech Degree alone are eligible for appointment to the post and possession of B.E/B.Tech Degree is a disqualification. The case of the Writ Petitioner was considered along with all other candidates. Admittedly, the petitioner came out successful in the written test conducted on-line on 31.03.2013. The petitioner was asked to appear for verification of original certificates and Medical Fitness Test fixed on 04.06.2013. However, the petitioner gave a telegram on 26.06.2013 stating that she has not received the call letter. However, the first respondent examined the said request and as a special case, the petitioner was given one more chance to appear for verification of original certificates and medical test on 03.07.2013. During the certificates’ verification, it has come to the light that the petitioner has completed B.E Degree Course and yet to be awarded with the Degree. The petitioner has given a declaration certifying that she has completed her B.E Degree Course in May 2013 and enclosed the copy of the “Course Completion Certificate” dated 23.05.2013, issued by the Institution, where she has studied. She has undergone B.E. Degree Course in Civil Engineering Branch in the College during 2010-2013 and she appeared for final examination in April/May 2013.
7.The petitioner passed in the written examination and an opportunity was given to her to produce the proof for not clearing “B.E/B.Tech” Degree as on 23.07.2013. The petitioner had clearly stated earlier that she had completed B.E Course and was awaiting results. In spite of all these, the first respondent has given an opportunity to the petitioner to produce proof for not acquiring B.E Degree, as on 23.07.2013, to the Office of the first respondent, on or before 13.08.2013, for further consideration of her case. Instead of giving the proof for not acquiring B.E Degree as on 23.07.2013, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition, challenging the impugned letter.
8.The learned counsel for the first respondent reiterated that the post was earmarked only for the Diploma holders and the persons, who possessed higher qualification are not qualified for selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). The Notification, in this regard, is very clear and is understood by the petitioner and in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner, the first respondent issued a letter to produce proof that she has not completed B.E Degree. Instead of submitting the proof, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. The instructions issued to the candidates are very clear with reference to the qualification fixed for the post of Junior Engineer. Thus, the petitioner was not selected and she is not eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and therefore, the Writ Petition is to be dismissed.
9.The learned counsel for the first respondent cited the Judgment of this Court, dated 18.06.2019, passed in W.P.No.23126 of 2013. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
- The Petitioner had applied to the post of Train Operator / Station Controller/Junior Engineer (Station) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 01.02.2013 and also participated in the online test conducted on 31.03.2013, in which she was declared successful. The contention of the Petitioner that though she had cleared her B.E. Degree Course on 21.06.2013, the certificate was issued only on 24.07.2013 and therefore, she was not in possession of required qualification, cannot be accepted, because, once she had the knowledge of clearance of all papers in the degree course, that itself is sufficient to say that she is a B.E.Graduate. Admittedly, she came out successful in her graduation course prior to the cut off date, viz., 23.07.2013 and even before the date of certificate verification, which fell on 05.07.2013 and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that she was not overqualified as on 23.07.2013.
- ….
- Of course, it is true that the Petitioner had not suppressed the fact of her B.E. Qualification, but at the same time, when Clause No.13 is read in conjunction with Clause No.2 of the Employment Notice, it can easily be said that the Petitioner is overqualified as on the cut off date and therefore, she is not entitled to any relief.
10….
- In view of what is stated herein-above, this Court has no other option, but to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief on account of over qualification and the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
10.This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned letter states that the petitioner was requested to produce the proof for not acquiring B.E/B.Tech Degree. as on 23.07.2013 to Chennai Metro Rail Limited, on or before 13.08.2013, for further consideration.
11.The contention of the petitioner is that as on the date of the Notification, she had not completed B.E Degree and therefore, she is eligible for selection to the post of Junior Engineer. The fact remains that the instructions issued to the candidates with reference to the educational qualification clearly states that candidates possessing higher qualification are not eligible for appointment and their candidature will summarily be cancelled at any time of recruitment or even after appointment in Chennai Metro Rail Limited. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has completed the Course of B.E Degree and she was awaiting for the results. Therefore, one cannot say that she has not completed the B.E Degree Course. In fact, the Course Completion Certificate was produced by the Writ Petitioner, which was issued by the institution, in which, the petitioner studied.
- Prescribing the eligibility criteria and requisite educational qualifications that a Graduate shall not be eligible to apply to a particular post was a conscious decision taken by the respondents in the present case. The said intention was very much reduced in the form of a condition in the Recruitment Notification.
- It is needless to state that the process of selection and recruitment is to be conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules in force and the terms and conditions notified in the Notification. Equal opportunity being a Constitutional mandate. The Authorities Competent are bound to follow the Rules as well as the terms and conditions of the Recruitment scrupulously. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a recent case, decided on 03.11.2020 in Civil Appeal No.3602 of 2020 held that the prescription of educational qualifications and eligibility criteria are the prerogative of the employers, however, the employer must keep in mind the various factors and implications, while prescribing such educational qualifications as well as the eligibility criteria. Suitability and eligibility being a prime factors to be considered for a selection, the job responsibility, attached with a particular post, is also a consideration to be shown, while prescribing the terms and conditions as well as the educational qualifications. Such an exercise is expected to be done in consonance with the Constitutional Principles. Every employer is obligated to ensure that equal opportunity as well as the efficient Public Administration ensured under the Constitution is met with, while undertaking the process of recruitment to public post.
- In another recent decision, in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather, the Apex Court has distinguished another decision in the case of Jyoti K.K. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission reported in (2010 (15 SCC 596), taking the view that “in a case where lower qualification is prescribed, if a person has acquired higher qualifications, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the posts”. In the said decision, the Apex Court also took note of another decision in the case of State of Pubjab Vs. Anita reported in (2015 (2) SCC 170), in which case, the Supreme Court on facts distinguished the position in the case of Jyoti K.K. (cited supra). While distinguishing the decision in the case of Jyoti KK., it is observed in paragraphs 25 to 27, as under:-
“25. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] has been considered in a judgment of two learned Judges in State of Punjab v. Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329]. In that case, applications were invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under the rules, the prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a two years’ course in JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi of the Matriculation standard or its equivalent. This Court held that none of the respondents held the prescribed qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be treated as a “higher qualification”. Adverting to the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] , this Court noted that Rule 10(a)(ii) in that case clearly stipulated that the possession of a higher qualification can presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post. In the absence of such a stipulation, it was held that such a hypothesis could not be deduced: (Anita case [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] , SCC p. 177, para 15)
“15.It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents possess higher qualifications, then the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid observations in Jyoti K.K. case [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] , permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 598, para 6)
‘6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows:
- (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or Standing Orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post.’ (emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory provision authorising the appointment of persons with higher qualifications.” (emphasis supplied)
- We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] . The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12102017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12102017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.”
That thereafter it is observed in para 27 as under:
- While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned.”
- In unambiguous terms, the Supreme Court emphasized that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment, as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts. Prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the candidate must have passed Diploma in Civil Engineering is justified and as observed, it is a conscious decision taken by the respondents and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity as such in the matter of prescribing the qualifications and imposing a condition that higher qualification is disqualification.
- In the present situation, in our great Nation, prescription of minimum and maximum educational qualifications, for a particular post, with reference to the job responsibility, is certainly unavoidable. The literacy level is increasing fastly. Free education to children is a Right ensured as of now. The children from rural background are also getting opportunities even to acquire higher qualifications. Undoubtedly, the Government machinery is thriving hard to achieve maximum literacy level. Under these circumstances, the efficiency level to be maintained in Public Administration is also the criteria to be borne in mind. Constitution contemplates, while providing reservation, the efficient Public Administration is to be maintained. Thus, any compromise on the efficiency level in Public Administration is impermissible under the Constitutional perspectives.
- Lakh and Lakh of youth are unemployed in our Great Nation. Large number of minimum educated youth of our Great Nation are longing to secure public employment through open competitive process. Equal opportunity in public employment being a Fundamental Right of a citizen. Government must ensure such equal opportunity amongst equals, for the purpose of securing public employment. In the event of not prescribing the maximum qualification, the opportunities of the minimum qualified youth of our Great Nation is absolutely taken away. They are deprived of their opportunities, as they are not competent to compete with the higher qualified candidates. They cannot be treated equally. Candidates with higher qualifications cannot be equated with the candidates possessing lower qualification. Thus, the equal opportunity clause contemplated is infringed, as far as the candidates possessing the lower qualification. Their Fundamental Rights are violated. They are deprived of their opportunities to secure public employments, even for lower posts. This being the prevalent situation, slowly the employers are imposing a condition that the higher qualified candidates are not eligible to compete for a lower post wherein, the minimum educational qualifications is prescribed. The Doctrine of Necessity is pressed into service, as the employers are bound to ensure equal opportunity to be provided amongst equals.
- Thus, the candidates, who are possessing higher qualifications, may have many opportunities to apply for various posts. However, those opportunities may not be available to the candidates, who are possessing the minimum educational qualifications. Thus, the employment opportunity for minimum qualified candidates are totally taken away and the opportunity is snatched away by the higher qualified candidates. Thus, the Governments are bound to seriously consider these issues and take a decision with reference to the cadre, nature of job responsibility etc., while prescribing the educational qualifications and criteria for selection to various posts.
- Public Administration is now suffering on account of selecting higher qualified candidates for lower posts. Master Degree holders, Engineering Degree holders, Degree holders are appointed to the posts of Office Assistants, Sweepers, Scavengers and Residential Assistants in High Court and many other posts in other Departments. The Administration is now struggling to extract work from those higher qualified candidates. They are not prepared to perform the duties and responsibilities attached to the lower posts. Contrarily, they are receiving a decent salary from the taxpayers money and in the process of attempting to secure higher posts or to appear for some other examinations. They are not showing any devotion to their duties. Public Administration is suffering, as these appointees are not prepared to perform the menial jobs.
- A classic example regarding the recent appointments in High Court, for the post of ‘Residential Assistants’, which are mainly created for a specific purpose of providing effective assistance to the Hon’ble Judges in their Residences. The suitability and eligibility of those appointees are undoubtedly questionable. The High Court Administration is struggling to extract work from these appointees, as most of them are over qualified and not suitable and eligible for the post of ‘Residential Assistants’, with reference to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Recruitment Notification. Whether few candidates have suppressed the fact regarding their over qualification is to be verified by the Competent Authorities. The fact remains that these over qualified employees are reluctant in performing their duties and responsibilities, attached to the post of ‘Residential Assistants’, as per the Notification. Such a failure in recruitment process can never be tolerated, as the appointees are receiving decent salary from the taxpayers money and therefore, the Authorities Competent are duty bound to ensure that the candidates appointed in public services, perform their duties and responsibilities with devotion and in accord with the Rules in force. Any misplaced sympathy would result in disastrous consequences in running the Administration. Thus, eligibility and suitability is the important criteria to be assessed, which is repeatedly emphasized by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India. Public Administration is expected to be hyper sensitive, with reference to the performance of public duty, which is a Constitutional mandate. Thus, compromise in this regard is undoubtedly impermissible. Issues are to be addressed retrospectively in order to ensure efficient and effective Public Administration so as to serve the people of our great Nation. Any failure in this regard will result in administrative inefficiency, which would lead to violation of Constitutional mandates.
- The Government Departments are also facing the similar issues. Yet another example is Police Department, which is recruiting candidates to the post of ‘Grade-II Police Constables’ with educational qualifications of M.A., M.Sc., M.Com., B.E., B.Tec., M.E., and even M.B.B.S. It is an unfortunate situation. This Court is able to realize that the Authorities Competent are in sensitive in the matter of recruiting suitable and eligible candidates, for a particular post with reference to the nature of job and its responsibilities. An Engineering candidate appointed as Grade-II Police Constable may not have any devotion to duty, attached to the post of Grade-II Police Constable. There may be exceptions, but largely, higher qualified candidates cannot perform the duties and responsibilities attached to the lower post. Master Degree in Engineering candidates were appointed as Constables. The situation would be still worse. The plight of the higher officials are to be considered. They may not be in a position to have effective control over these Constables. Discipline is the paramount importance for uniformed services. Indiscipline would result in disastrous consequences. In the absence of an effective control over the uniformed forces, State may not be in a position to maintain Law and Order. Increased rate of crimes are reported. Efficient Police force is certainly warranted. But, the situation prevailing is that the discipline in the Police force are slowly deteriorating and corrupt activities are dominating. Thus, urgent actions are immediately warranted. Effective control over the police forces are imminent. But, over qualified candidates are appointed as Constables. These vital aspects cannot be neglected and as of now, the higher officials are struggling to maintain discipline in the forces. The Government is bound to apply its mind seriously so as to ensure the suitability and eligibility criteria are strictly adopted at the time of recruitment and also to uphold the Constitutional Principles of Equality amongst equals. As stated earlier, higher qualified and lower qualified cannot be construed as equals.
- The concept of Social Justice enumerated in the ‘Preamble’ of the Constitution require opportunity in public employment is to be provided to reach the Constitutional goal of Social Justice. Question arises how Social Justice can be achieved in the matter of public employments. Equality clause enunciated and discrimination go together, if followed in consonance with the Constitutional principles, State can achieve the Constitutional goal of Social Justice. Recruiting large number of higher qualified candidates for a lower post would offend the Principles of Social Justice and further would lead to inefficiency in Public Administration. The Principles of Social Justice cannot be understood in isolation and it must be read inconsonance with Constitutional Philosophy as a whole.
- Question may arise equality amongst whom? Equality amongst higher qualified and lower qualified; certainly not. Candidates possessing higher qualification can never be equated with the candidates possessing lesser qualification. In the event of making them equals, Article 14 of the Constitution is offended. There is no level playing field between the two different categories of candidates. Higher qualified candidates would be dominant in performance during the selection process. Thus, the opportunity of public employment to the lesser qualified candidates are taken away, which is directly in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Situation require a drastic change in the matter of prescription of minimum and maximum educational qualifications as well as strict adherence of suitability and eligibility of the candidates for a particular post or cadre. Nature of job and job responsibility are the vital factors. Thus, the Public Administration, as a whole, is bound to revisit the entire situation, in order to uphold the Constitutional perspectives.
- The issues discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs are of public importance and relating to the Constitutional Rights of the Citizen of our great Nation, which is to be protected by the Constitutional Courts. Thus, this Court is inclined to suo motu implead the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Cehnnai – 9 and the Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai, for a limited purpose of considering the issues discussed in this order, in the light of the Constitutional Principles and take appropriate decision, in the matter of recruitment to the public posts.
- As far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, the Writ Petitioner could not able to establish that she was not possessing the higher qualification of B.E. Degree, as the petitioner has failed to produce any proof to establish the same. The instructions issued to the candidates in the Recruitment Notification is unambiguous that over qualification is a disqualification. The decision already taken by the respondent. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, in this regard is certainly commendable and appreciable. Thus, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.≅
07.12.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sji / MPK
To
1.The General Manager (HR),
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
(A Joint Venture of Government of India
and Government of Tamil Nadu),
Corporate Office, Harini Towers,
No.7, Conron Smith Road,
Gopalapuram,
Chennai-600 086.
2.The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3.The Registrar General,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
MPK
W.P.(MD).No.13468 of 2013
07.12.2020
