BEDANGA TALUKDARversusSAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & ORS.

                     (2011] 11 S.C.R. 635


                   BEDANGA TALUKDAR                                  A
                                v.
               SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & ORS.
                         I.A. No. 5-8
                              IN
           (Civil Appeal Nos. 8343-8344 of 2011)                     B
                    SEPTEMBER 28, 2011

[ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]

     Service law - Selection - Challenge to - Issuance of            C
advertisement to hold preliminary examination for recruitment
to various posts in Public Service - Failure of respondent No.
 1-physically handicapped candidate to submit the requisite
disability certificate within the stipulated period as provided in
 the advertisement - RespondeoLN.0-.--1--submitted the               D
mandatory ®mrtts-lifterthe- selection process was over,
 with the publication of the select list of the successful
candidates and rejection of his candidature - Selection of
 appellant in the reserved category but not of respondent No.
 1 despite respondent No. 1 having scored more marks than            E
 the appellant - Writ petition by respondent No. 1 - Order of
High Court directing the Public Service Commission to
examine the entitlement of respondent No. 1 by taking into
account the identity card produced by him - On appeal, held:
All appointments to public office have to be made in                 F
 conformity with Article 14 - There must be no arbitrariness
resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate
- Thus, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in
accordance with the stipulated selection procedure - When
a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the          G
same has to be scrupulously maintained - There can be no
relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the
advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved
in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement - Even if

                               635                                   H
    636      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A   power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be
    mentioned in the advertisement - Relaxation of any condition
    in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to
    the mandate o(equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 - On
    facts, perusal of the advertisement clearly shows that there
B   was no power of relaxation - High Court erred in directing that
    the condition with regard to the submission of the disability
    certificate either along with the application form or before
    appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed
    in the case of respondent No. 1; and in concluding that the
c   Authorities had not treated the condition with regard to the
    submission of the certificate along with the application or
    before appearing in the preliminary examination, as
    mandatory which is contrary to the record - Thus, order
    passed by the High Court is set aside - Persons with
    Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
0
    Participation), Act, 1995 - Constitution of India; 1950-Articles
    14 and 16.

         Kamataka Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. B.M.
    Vijaya Shankar & Ors (1992) 2 SCC 206 - referred to.
E
                         Case Law Reference:
          (1992) 2 sec 206         Referred to.          Para 22
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F   8343-8344 of 2011.

         From the Judgment & Order dated 4.3.2010 & 20.7.2010
    of the High Court of Guwahati, Assam in WP Nos. 950 and
    3382 of 2010.

G       Jayant Bhushan and V. Hazarika, Manish K. Bishnoi,
    Gautam Talukdar, Shakunt Saumihra, R.B. Phookan, Goodwill
    lndeevar, Rajiv Mehta, Vartika Sahay and Deepika (for
    Corporate Law Group) for the appearing parties.

H
 BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & 637
                  ORS.
     The following Order of the Court was delivered                 A

                           ORDER

     1. Leave granted.

     2. These appeals are directed against the impugned B
judgment and order dated 4th March, 2010 in Writ Petition (C)
No. 950 of 2010 and impugned judgment and order dated 2nd
July, 2010 in Writ Petition (C) No.3382 of 2010 passed by the
High Court of Guwahati, allowing the writ petitions filed by the
respondent No.1 whereby Assam Public Service Commission C
(hereinafter referred to as "respondent No. 3") was directed to
examine the entitlement of respondent No.1 by taking into
account the identity card produced by him.

      3. We may notice the bare essential facts necessary for
 the determination of the controversy involved in these appeals D


     4. The respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement on 10th
August, 2006 bearing advertisement No.6/2006, announcing its
intention to hold the preliminary examination of the Combined       E
Competitive Examination, 2006 for screening candidates for the
Main Examination for recruitment to various posts educated in
the advertisement. The last date for the receipt of the completed
application forms was fixed as 11th September, 2006. In this
advertisement, although, posts had been reserved for various        F
categories such as OBC/MOBC, SC, ST(P) and ST(H), but
there was no reservation in favour of the disabled candidates
as required under the Persons with Disabi~ities [Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation],
 ~.1~.                                                              G
      5. Consequently, a Public Interest Litigation being P .l.L.
· No.61/2006 was filed in the High Court by Order dated 13th
  March, 2007. The High Court by an interim order directed
  respondent No.3 not to conduct any examination during the
                                                                    H
    638     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   pendency of the petition. By order dated 13th March, 2007, the
    High Court directed respondent No.3 to make a fresh
    advertisement on the basis of the requisitions to be received
    from the Government of Assam (respondent No.2) incorporating
    reservation of 3% for persons with disabilities.
B
         6. In compliance with the orders of the High Court dated
    13th March, 2007, respondent No. 3 issued a corrigendum on
    5th June, 2007 reserving three per cent vacancies for Physically
    Handicapped persons, in terms of Persons with Disabilities
C   [Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
    Participation], Act, 1995. Applications were invited for one post
    in the Assam Civil Service Class-I (Jr. Grade) from persons
    suffering from Locomotor Disability, in connection with the
    conduct of Combin.ed Competitive (Preliminary) Examination,
    2006 for screening candidates for the Main examination for the
D   posts already mentioned in the earlier advertisement No. 6/.._
    2006. It is evident that this corrigendum was issued in
    continuation of advertisement No. 6/2006 dated 10th August,
    2006. It was provided therein that candidates, who had applied
    earlier to the advertisement No. 6/2006 dated 10th August,
E   2006, need not apply again but the candidates with Locomotor
    Disability must produce supporting documents in the office of
    the Assam Public Service Commission or in the examination
    hall before the commencement of the examination. The Last
    date for submission of the applications under the corrigendum
F   was 6th July, 2007.

         7. Respondent No.1 had applied in response to the
    advertisement dated 10th August, 2006. Since there was no
    requirement for submission of any details with regard to any
G   disability, he had not submitted any disability certificate.
    Although, in view of the corrigendum, respondent No.1 was not
    required to make an application afresh, he was required to
    produce necessary supporting documents in the office of the
    Commission or in the examination hall before the
H   commencement of the preliminary examination. Respondent
 BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & 639
                  ORS.
No.1 had been certified by the District Medical Board, Dhubri,         A
to be physically disabled to the extent of 50% on 21st January,
2004. On the basis of this certificate, respondent No.1 was
issued ·an identity card by the District Social Welfare Officer,
Dhubri on 18th February, 2004 which specified his disability
to be Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50%. The preliminary       B
examination was held on 23rd September, 2007.

    8. We may notice here that respondent No.1 did not
submit the mandatory documents, to substantiate his
candidature in the seat reserved for candidates with
"Locomotor Disability'', on or before 6th July, 2007, i.e., the last   C
date for submission of applications. He also did not submit the
mandatory documents even at the time when he appeared in
the preliminary examination. Therefore, he appeared in the
examination as a general category candidate.              ·
                                                                       D
     9. Both the appellant and respondent No.1 successfully
participated in the preliminary examination. The advertisement
had clearly specified that "candidates who are declared by the
Commission to have qualified for admission to the Main
examination will have to apply again in the prescribed                 E
application form, which will be supplied to them." It was the claim
of respondent No.1, that he had specifically indicated in Column
No. 11 of his application in the prescribed form for the Main
examination that he suffers from Locomotor Disability upto
50%. According to him, he had submitted the certificate dated          F
21st January, 2004 issued by the District Medical Board,
Dhubri. Being satisfied Respondent No.3 had permitted him to
appear in the Main examination.

     10. Having successfully completed the written examination,
both the candidates, i.e., appellant and respondent No.1, were G
called for interview on 1st December, 2008. It was the case of
respondent No.1 that he had produced the necessary
documents in support of his claim of Locomotor Disability to
the· extent of 50%, along with the other certificates and
testimonials at the time of interview. The Commission, H
    640     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   respondent No. 3, published the list of selected candidates on
    15th June, 2009. The name of respondent No.1 ·did not appear
    in the said list. In fact, the appellant was shown to have been
    selected for appointment in the Assam Public Service
    Commission as a physically handicapped candidate.
B
          11 . Respondent No.1 made an application under the
    provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 before the
    appropriate authority seeking the details of the marks scored
    by him as well as the details of the marks obtained by other
C   physically handicapped candidates called for the interview.
    From the information supplied to him, respondent No. 1 came
    to know that he had scored 817 marks, whereas the appellant
    had scored 695 marks. Respondent No. 1 thereafter made a
    representation dated 14th September, 2009 addressed to the
    Chairman of respondent No.3 as well as the Secretary of the
D   Commission making a grievance that his candidature had been
    arbitrarily rejected, even though, he had scored more marks
    than appellant in the examination. It appears that respondent
    No. 1 had also reiterated that his claim for being considered
    in the Locomotor Disability category, was duly supported by the
E   necessary documents, i.e., certificate issued by the District
    Medical Board, Dhubri dated 21st January, 2004 and the
    identity card issued by the District Social Welfare Officer.

         12. He had further stated that at the time of interview, he
F   had produced the necessary documents in support of his claim.
    According to respondent No. 1, on 4th December, 2009, the
    Deputy Secretary of the Commission (respondent No.3) had
    informed him that the identity card showing respondent No. 1
    to be suffering from Locomotor Disability was not submitted
G   alongwith the application form for the Main examination, though
    the same was a compulsory document. Respondent No. 1 was
    accordingly asked to submit the same to the Commission as
    early as possible on receipt of the communication dated 4th
    December, 2009. Respondent No. 1 replied vide his letter
    dated 10th December, 2009 addressed to the Deputy
H
BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & 641
                 ORS.
Secretary of the Commission, stating that all necessary ·A
documents showing that he is a physically handicapped person
suffering from Locomotor Disability were submitted alongwith
the application form of the Main examination. Respondent No.
1 also reiterated his claim that all documents were verified by
the Commission at the time of interview on 1st December, B
2008. In the letter dated 10th December, 2009, respondent No.
1 also mentioned that as directed by the Deputy Secretary of
the Commission, an attested copy of the ID card issued to him
by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhubri is being
forwarded.                       ·                              c
       13. It would be relevant to notice here that the select list
dated 15th June, 2009 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2755
of 2009 and other connected cases. The aforesaid writ petition
was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the matter back
to respondent No.3 to take a fresh decision and publish a D
revised list. The reservation in the category of Locomotor
Disability was not the issue before the Court in the aforesaid
writ petition. The procedural anomaly related to women
candidates.
                                                                    E
       14. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No.
67 of 2010 seeking a direction to include his name in the fresh
list to be issued by the respondent No.3, Commission. This writ
petition was dismissed by the High Court being premature on
7th January, 2010. Thereafter, on 5th February, 2010, the F
Commission published a revised list, wherein name of
respondent No. 1 was again not included in the list of
candidates selected for the appointment.

     15. Respondent No. 1, therefore, challenged the select list
by Writ Petition No. 950 of 2010. The writ petition was filed on G
8th February, 2010. The High Court granted an ex-parte order
on 11th February, 2010 directing respondent No.3 not to issue
the appointment I posting orders to the appellant. .

     16. In the counter affidavit filed to this writ petition.     H
      642      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 11 S.C.R.

A..   respondent No.3 specifically stated that th,.e documents had not .
      been submitted by the respondent No. 1 within the prescribed
      time. On 14th March, 2010, the writ petition filed by respondent
      No. 1 was allowed. A direction was issued to respondent No.3
      to reconsider the matter afresh based on the identity card
B     submitted on 10th December, 2009. We may notice here that
      this direction had been issued by the High Court in spite of the
      categoric assertion made by the respondent No.3 that the
      candidature of the respondent No. 1 had been rejected on the
      basis of the resolution dated 8th January, 2010. In its meeting
c     dated 8th January, 2010, respondent No.3 had resolved that
      respondent No. 1 did not submit the identity card along with the
      form. This was vital to support the claim of respondent No.1 to
      be considered for the post reserved for the candidates having
      Locomotor Disability. Therefore, his candidature was rejected
D     for non-fulfillment of an essential condition. However, pursuant
      to the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 4th
      March, 2010, respondent No.3 in its meeting held on 21st May,
      2010 again thoroughly examined the matter relating to the
      entitlement of respondent No. 1 for final selection as a physically .
      handicapped (Locomotor Disability) candidate. Upon a
E     thorough scrutiny and re-examination of the facts and the
      material on record, the claim of respondent No. 1 was not
      accepted. The name of appellant was duly reiterated as the
      candidate selected for appointment. A communication to that
      effect was sent to the appellant as well as respondent No. 1
F     on 31st May, 2010.

        17. At this stage, respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No.
   3382 of 2010 challenging the minutes dated 21st May, 2010
   and the communication dated 31st May, 2010. The aforesaid
G writ petition has been allowed by the High Court with
   observations that respondent No.3 was under a legal obligation
   to examine the petitioner's entitlement for selection by taking
  into account his identity card. The High Court notices that the
   resolution of the respondent No.3 contained :n the minutes of
H the meeting dated 21st May, 2010 would indicate that the
BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & 643
                 ORS.
Commission had resolved not to consider the case of                   A
respondent No. 1 for selection for appointment against the
solitary post earmarked for physically handicapped candidates
on the ground that the identity card, which was required to be
submitted by respondent No. 1 at different stages. The High
Court has held that the aforesaid decision, is not rendered in        B
the light of the directions giveri by the High Court in Paragraph
13 of the order dated 4th March, 2010 passed in Writ Petition
(C) No. 950 of 2010. It has beeri observed by the High Court
that the question of belated submission of the identity card
having been already answered by the Court and directions              c
having been issued to take into account the same, the Public
Service Commission could not have acted in the manner it has
done. This writ petition was, therefore, allowed with the following
observations:-

     "For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the resolution          D
     dated 21.5.2010 of the Commission as well as the
     communication dated 31.5.2010 and direct that the Public
     Service Commission will now examine the entitlement of
     the petitioner by taking into account the identity card
     produced by him. For the purpose of clarification, we            E
     deem it appropriate to add that while considering the case
     of the petitioner the acceptability, veracity or otherwise of
     the contents of the identity card and the effect of the said
     contents, if found to be acceptable, would be considered
     by the Commission."                                              F

    These directions are challenged by the appellant in these
appeals.

     18. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
                                                                      G
      19. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel, appearing
for the appellant herein submits that in the advertisement dated·
5th June, 2007, one post was reserved for person suffering from
Locomotor Disability only. The advertisement also further
provided that those who applied earlier in response to                H
    644      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A  advertisement No.6/2006 dated 1.0th August, 2006 need not
   apply again, but the candidates with Locomotor Disability must
   produce supporting documents in the office of Assam Public
   Service Commission or in the examination hall before
   commencement of the examination. The advertisement further
B provided that candidates who are declared by the Commission
   to have qualified for admission to the main examination will
   have to apply again in prescribed application form, which will
   be supplied to them. All candidates applying in the category of
   persons with Locomotor Disability upto 50% were required to
c  send a certificate of Locomotor Disability from the appropriate
   authority. According to Mr. Bhushan, respondent No. 1 did not
   submit the necessary certificate in the office of the respondent
   No. 3 or in the examination hall before commencement of the
   examination. In fact, he did not submit even the ID card till after
D the interview. By the time, he submitted the ID card, even the
   Select List of the successful candidates had been published.
 · Since respondent No. 1 had not submitted the requisite
   disability certificate within the stipulated period as provide in
   the advertisement, respondent No. 3 rejected his candidature
E for valid reasons in its resolution dated 8th January, 2010.

       20. Mr. Bhushan submits that direction issued by _the High
  Court are contrary to the settled principle of law that there can
  be no variation ·in the conditions of eligibility as laid down in
  the advertisement, unless a specific stipulation is made about
F any particular condition being relaxable at the discretion of the
  concerned authority. Learned senior counsel submits that the
  High Court has erred in holding that the rigour of Article 14
  would not be automatically applicable "to the domain of
  appointment in public office where the employer must strive to
G pick the best talent available. To achieve such result, the
  employer must be conferred a wide discretion to act in
  relaxation of the rigour of the terms of an advertisement. The
  requirements spelt out in an advertisement for appointment in
  public service must, therefore, not to be understood to be
H
 BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & 645
                  ORS.
inflexible leaving no room for elasticity". Learned senior counsel     A
further submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that
claim of respondent No. 1 had been rejected upon due
consideration by respondent No. 3 after according him an
adequate opportunity by resolution dated 8th Jahuary, 2010.
                                                                       B
     21. According to the learned senior counsel, the High Court
has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the
Commission had itself treated candidature of many candidates
to be provisional on account of the fact that requisite certificates
of age or educational qualifications had not been submitted
along with the application form. According to Mr. Bhushan, the         C
High Court has wrongly concluded that the Public Service
Commission had itself treated the condition about the
submission of necessary certificates to be not mandatory and
inflexible requirements. According to the learned senior
counsel, the aforesaid conclusion of the High Court is factually       D
incorrect.

      22. The learned senior counsel submits that respondent
No.3 had in fact rejected the candidature of respondent No.1
strictly in accordance with the instructions issued in the             E
"Information to the candidates on the Combined Competitive
(Main) Examination". Instruction No. 13 clearly stipulates that
"any application form receiv~d without all or some of the
enclosures is liable to be summarily rejected. Any enclosure
which was not sent along with the application ear!ier but sent         F
!)ubsequently by the candidates will not be entertained. Thus
candidates must ensure that the application form is properly
filled in and is accompanied by all the relevant documents." Mr.
Bhushan submits that in the case of respondent No. 1, he was
required to submit an attested copy of certificate of Locomotor        G
Disability. The High Court records that the necessary certificate
was not submitted by respondent No. 1 before the last date of
receipt of applications, which was 11th September, 2006.
Learned senior c9unsel has also relied on a judgment of this

                                                                       H
      646       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission
  & Ors. Vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar & Ors1•

            23. On the other hand, Mr.' V. Hazarika, learned senior
      counsel submits that the respondent No.3 reconsidered the
      entire issue after the High Court set aside the resolution passed
8
      by respondent No.3 on 8th January, 2010. Respondent No. 1
      had to file W.P. (C) No. 950 of 2010 as respondent No.3 again
      illegally rejected his candidatures. He, therefore, challenged the
      selection of the appellant.

C ·     24. In the aforesaid writ petition, it was stated that in the
  application, respondent No.1 had specifically mentioned
  against Column No. 11 of the application form that he suffers
  from Locomotor Disability upto 50%. He had submitted a
  certificate issued by-the District Medical Board, Dhubri dated
D 21st January, 2004 in support of his claim to be a physically
  handicapped person along with the identity card issued by the
  District Social Welfare officer. It was further his claim in the writ
  petition that he had qualified in the main examination and was
  called for interview by call letter dated 1st December, 2008. It
E was further the case of the respondent No. 1 that he had
  produced the necessary documents in support of his claim of
  Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50% along with the other
  certificates and testimonials at th,e time of interview. However,
  when the select list was published on 15th June, 2009, the name
F of respondent No.1 was not included therein. It was in fact the
  appellant, who had been selected for appointment. It was also
  the case of the respondent No. 1 that the appellant had scored
  695 marks whereas respondent No.1 had scored 817 marks
  in the examination. In spite of having scored higher marks, he
G was illegally and arbitrarily not selected.

          25. The respondent No.1 had, therefore, submitted a
      representation on 14th September, 2009 to respondent No. 3,
      seeking to question the selection of the appellant, who had

H     1.   (1992) 2 sec 20s.
 BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN & 647
                  ORS.
scored lesser marks. In the representation, respondent No.1        A
had specifically stated that he had submitted the necessary
supporting documents along with the application form. The said
documents were verified at the time of interview on 11th
December, 2008. The documents were also enclosed with the
representation dated 14th September, 2009. Therefore, on 4th       B
December, 2009, the Deputy Secretary of the Commission had
informed respondent No. 1 that the identity card showing him
to be suffering from Locomotor Disability was not submitted
along with the application form for the main examination.
Though the same is a compulsory document. Respondent No.1          c
was, therefore, asked to submit the same to the Commission
as early as possible. On receipt of the communication dated
4th December, 2009, respondent No.1 through his letter dated
10th December, 2008 addressed to the Deputy Secretary of
the Commission reiterated that the documents had already           D
been submitted and verified by the Commission. However, he
again sent an attested copy of the identity card issued to him
by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dhubri.

     26. Learned senior counsel submits that taking into
consideration the aforesaid facts, the High Court correctly came   E
to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 had not specifically
denied the claim of the appellant that he had produced the
identity card at the time of interview on 11th December, 2008.
The High Court had also taken into consideration that the
candidature of three other candidates, who had not submitted       F
the necessary documents was treated as provisional. These
candidates were included in the select list. Therefore, the High
Court has rightly concluded that the condition with regard to
submission of certificates and testimonials along with the
application or before the preliminary examination was not          G
mandatory. The action of the respondent No.3 in rejecting the
candidature in the resolutions dated 8th January, 2010 and 21st
May, 2010 were rightly quashed by the High Court.

    27. Mr. Bhushan, in reply, submitted that upon a thorough
examination of the entire fact situation, respondent No.3 in its   H
    648      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011) 11 S.C.R.


A resolution dated 21st May, 2010 has clearly observed that
  respondent No.1 was treated as a general candidate all along
  in the examination process and was not treated as physically
  handicapped with Locomotor Disability. The respondent No.3
  also looked into the question whether any other candidate, who
B had not furnished any essential document with the application
  or at the time of interview but submitted them after the interview
  were accepted or not. Upon examination of the issue,
  respondent No.3 has observed that in fact the candidature of
  one applicant namely Smt. Anima Baishya was specifically
c rejected as she had submitted the application before the
  Chairperson of respondent No.3 on 26th February, 2009,
  claiming herself to be a SC candidate for the first time. In the
  case of respondent No. 1, the identity card was submitted for
  the first time with the letter dated 10th December, 2009 much
D after the examination process was over.

         28. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our
   opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that
   all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity
 · with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there
E must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being
   shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has
   to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated
   selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule
   is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be
F scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the
   terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power
   is specifically reserved. Such a pow~r could be reserved in the
   relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided
   in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In
G the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided
   in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if
   exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be
   necessary to ensure that those candidates who become
   eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity
H to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in
BEDANGA TALUKDAR v. SAIFUDAULLAH KHAN &                       649
                 ORS.
advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the       A
mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.

     29. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly
show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the
                                                                     B
High Court committed an error in directing that the condition
with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either
along with the application form or before appearing in the
preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of
respondent No. 1. Such a course would not be permissible as          C
it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.

     30. In our opinion, the High Court was in error in concluding
that the respondent No.3 had not treated the condition with
regard to the submission of the certificate along with the           D
application or before appearing in the preliminary examination,
as mandatory. The aforesaid finding, in our opinion, is contrary
to the record. In its resolution dated 21st May, 2010, the
Commission has recorded the following conclusions:-
                                                                     E
    "Though Shri S. Khan had mentioned in his letter dated
    10.12.2009 that he was resubmitting the Identity Card with
    regard to Locomotor Disability he, in fact, had submitted
    the documentary proof of his Locomotor Disability for the
    first time to the office of the A.P.S.C. through his above
    letter dated 10.12.2009. However, after receiving the            F
    Identity Card the matter was placed before the full
    Commission to decide whether the Commission can act
    on an essential document not submitted earlier as per
    terms of advertisement but submitted after completion of
    entire process of selection.                                     G

    The Commission while examining the matter in details
    observed that Shri S. Khan was treated as General
    candidate all along in the examination process and was
    not treated as Physically Handicapped with Locomotor             H
    650        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 11 S.C.R.

A          Disability. Prior to taking decision on Shri S. Khan it was
           also looked into by the Commission, whether any other
           candidate's any essential document relating to right/
           benefits etc. not furnished with the application or at the time
           of interview but submitted after interview was accepted or
B          not. From the record, it was found that prior to Shri S.
           Khan's cas·e, one Smt. Anima Baishya had submitted an
           application before the Chairperson on 26.2.2009 i:laiming
           herself to be a S.C. candidate for the first time. But her
           claim for treating herself as a S.C. candidate was not
c          entertained on the grounds that she applied as a General
           candidate and the caste certificate in support of her claim
           as S.C. candidate was furnished long after completion of
           examination process."

           31. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation
D in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court
  is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled
  law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions
  contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation
  is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement.
E Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same
  would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement.
  In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice.
  In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued
  the impugned direction to consider the claim of respondent
F No.1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection
  process was over, with the publication of the select list.

      32. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed and the
  impugned judg_ment and order dated 4th March, 2010-passed
G in W.P.(C) No.950 of 2010 and impugned judgment and order
  dated 2nd July, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.3382 of 2010 of
  the High Court are set aside ..

    N.J.                                              Appeals allowed.

H