Holding

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of the appellant based on preferential qualification (Matriculation marks) was valid and in accordance with the applicable guidelines, and that the CAT and High Court erred in setting it aside.

Summary

Surinder Singh was appointed as an Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) through an open selection conducted under the Government of India's circular dated 12.03.1993, which required a minimum qualification of 8th standard and gave preference to candidates with Matriculation, but no preference to qualifications higher than Matriculation. The Directorate of Post Offices later issued a letter directing that merit be assessed on the basis of Matriculation marks when such candidates were available. Respondent No.4 challenged the appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that the selection should have been based on 8th standard marks where he had a higher score. The CAT quashed the appointment and ordered a fresh selection; the High Court affirmed this order. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the selection committee correctly applied the preferential qualification rule, that the employer has the prerogative to prescribe such criteria, and that the CAT exceeded its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the CAT and High Court orders and restored the appellant's appointment. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the selection committee could lawfully give preference to candidates with Matriculation qualification over those with higher marks in the minimum qualification (8th standard) as per the 1993 circular and subsequent instructions.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to override the employer's prescribed selection criteria.
Interpretation of the 'preference' clause in the circular – does it restrict preference to Matriculation only and preclude consideration of higher qualifications?
Whether respondent No.4 had locus standi to challenge the appointment on the basis of 8th standard marks.

Subjects

Service lawPreferential qualificationRecruitmentExtra-Departmental Delivery AgentCircular 12.03.1993Central Administrative TribunalAppointment validityEmployer prerogative

Judgment

l

-~
SURINDER SINGH A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 30, 2007

[A.K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Selection-Preferential qualification-Ambit and Scope of-Department
of Posts-Extra Departmental Delivery Agent-Qualification-8th Standard c
with preference to be given to Matriculation qualification-Candidate securing
more marks in Matriculation, appointed-Appointment held valid-
Government of India-Ministry of Communication-Department of Posts-
Circular dated 12.3.1993--Clause 2(iv)-Directorate of Post Offices-Letter
No. 19-17197-ED and Trg. Dated 21.11.1997. D
_..
""" The appellant was selected through an open selection and was appointed
as an Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA). Respondent no. 4 challenged
before the Central Administrative Tribunal the appointment of the appellant,
inter alia, on the ground that as per the Government of India, Ministry of
Communication, Department of Posts, Circular dated 12.3.1993, the minimum E
qualification for the post was 8th standard and as he had secured more marks
in 8th standard tban the appellant, the latter could not have been selected on
the basis of preferential qualification. The case of the appellant was that as
per the Circular dated 12.3.1993 the minimum qualification was 8th standard
... with preference to the candidates having Matriculation qualification. He
further submitted that the Directorate of Post Offices by letter No. 19-17/97- F
-1
ED and Trg. Dated 21.11.1997 decided that the merit of candidates should be
prepared on the basis of marks obtained in preferential qualification, i.e.
Matriculation, if such candidates were available, and since the appellant had
secured 55.8% marks in Matriculation as against 41 % obtained by
respondent no. 4 the latter had no case. The Tribunal quashed the appointment G
~
of the appellant and directed the Department to hold a fresh selection. The
Writ petition of the appellant having been dismissed by the High Court in
~ limine, he filed the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
575 H

-
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1.1. The Selection of the appellant has been made by the Selection
Committee strictly in accordance with the latest Guidelines/Norms/
Instructions framed by the Department from time to time. The CAT as well
as the High Court, both have lost sight of the object and import of the
Guidelines/Norms/Instruction dated 22.07.1998 laid down by the Competent
B Authority. The CAT is not competent to lay down criteria for the selection
and appointment to the post of EDDA. It is the prerogative and authority of
the employer to lay down suitable service conditions to the respective posts.
Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause 2 of the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions dated :i.

12.3.1993 puts a limit with respect to preferential qualification by way of a
clear stipulation that no preference should be given to the qualification above
C Matriculation. Hence, the preferential qualification was considered to be more
effective and efficient and also it was a clear assumption that a candidate
possessing the same is best suited for the post in question.
[Para 16 and 17) [580-G-H; 581-A-E]

1.2. In service jurisprudence, prescription of preferential qualification
D not only refers to numeric superiority but is essentially related to better
mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities, which
are entrusted to the candidates after their selection to a particular post. All
the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The basic
object of prescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut off level for a
E particular job in accordance with the minimum competency required for the
performance of that job. The object of prescribing preferential qualification
is to select the best amongest the better candidates who possess more
competence than the others. [Para 17] [581-A-C]

Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar and Anr., [1993] 2
p sec 310, relied on. ·

1.3. The order of the High Court maintaining the order of the CAT is ' '\
set aside. [Para 13)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 143 of 200 I.

G From the Final Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2000 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ petition No. 13230-CAT of 2000.

S.K. Bansal, Savitri Bansal and Harbans Lal Bajaj for the Appellant.

T.S. Doabia, Sandeep Singh, P. Parmeswaran and K.K. Gupta for the
H Respondents.
/

SURINDER SINGH v. U.0.1. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.] 577
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. The present appeal is filed against
the judgment and order dated 27 .09 .2000 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.13280-CAT/2000. By the
said order, the High Court confirmed the order recorded by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the CAT') B
in O.A. No. 171 HR/2000.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are thus:

3. The Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department
of Posts, respondent No. 1 herein, vide Circular dated 12.03.1993 revised the C
educational qualifications for recruitment to various posts including the post '
of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (for short "EDDA"). As per the said
Circular, the minimum educational qualification for the post of EDDA, etc.
should be 8th standard pass and preference has to be given to the candidates
with Matriculation qualification. However, no preference should be given for D
any qualification higher than Matriculation.

4. According to the appellant, the Directorate of Post Offices issued a
letterNo.19-17/97-ED & Trg. dated 21.11.1997 to the Chief Post Master General
(CPMG), HR Circle Ambala, whereby the Department had decided that the
merit of candidates for selection of EDDAs should be prepared on the basis E
of the marks obtained in preferential qualification (i.e. Matriculation) if such
candidates are available, otherwise on the basis of the essential qualification,
viz. 8th standard.

5. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, North Sub-Division, F
Kurukshetra-respondent No.3 herein, in compliance to the letter of
Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurukshetra Dn. 136118 dated 30.07.1998
notified one post of EDDA to the Employment Exchange in May 1999. In
response thereto, the Employment Exchange forwarded the names of some
candidates including the names of the appellant and Dharam Pal, respondent
No.4· herein. The vacancy was also notified through public advertisement. In G
all, 20 candidates applied for the post.

6. The case of the appellant is that he qualified his Matriculation
examination from the Board of School Education, Haryana, in the year 1987
by securing 503 marks out of 900 (i.e. 55.8%). The appellant also qualified H
Senior Secondary Examination in the year 1991 from the Board of School
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A Education, Haryana. It is stated that respondent No.4 had secured 41 % marks
in the Matriculation examination. In view of the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions
issued by respondent No.I, the merit of the candidates for the post of EDDA
has been prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the preferential
qualifications, viz. Matriculation, and the Selection Committee selected and
B appointed the appellant against the post of EDDA on the basis of merit.

7. Respondent No.4 challenged the appointment of the appellant herein
before the CAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, inter alia on the ground that
as per the Circular, the minimum qualification was 8th standard and as he has
secured more marks in 8th standard than the appellant, the appellant could
C not have been selected on the basis of preferential qualification for the post
in question.

8. The appellant and the Department contested the claim of respondent
No.4 before the CAT in their separate counter affidavits. The CAT quashed
.the appointment of the appellant to the post of EDDA vide order dated
D 24.08.2000 and directed the respondent-Department to hold a fresh selection /
in accordance with law.

9. Aggrieved by the order of the CAT, the appellant filed the writ
petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, inter
E a/ia, on the grounds that while considering the matter the entire approach of
the CAT was wholly erroneous in law and not sustainable. According to the
appellant, the CAT has ignored the latest Guidelines/Norms/Instructions issued
by CPMG, Haryana, Ambala, a copy whereof was placed on the file of the
CAT, whereby the Competent Authority decided to consider the selection of
the candidates to the post of EDDA on the merits of preferential qualification, /-
F viz. Matriculation. Further, the contention of the appellant before the CAT
was that respondent No.4 had no locus standi to challenge the selection and
appointment of the appellant on the basis of the marks obtained by him in
8th standard examination in comparison·to the marks of the appellant, because
if the marks secured in 8th standard by the candidates were to be taken into
G consideration by the Selection Committee, respondent No.4 could not haye
been selected as there were other candidates, who had secured more marks
than respondent No.4 in the minimum qualifying examination. The appellant
submitted before the High Court that the CAT has gone beyond its jurisdiction
by making an attempt to reframe and recast the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions
framed by respondent No. 1 in prescribing reasonable and appropriate
H qualifications for a particular post and in the matters of making the appointment
SURINDER SINGH v. U.0.1. [LOKESHW AR SINGH PANTA, J.] 579
to the same. A
10. We have perused the impugned order of the High Court. The High
Court, without going into the merit of the case, dismissed the writ petition in
limine, merely on the ground that it had already disposed of similar matter
being CWP No.11812-CAT of2000 on 04.09.2000, wherein similar kind oforder
recorded by the CAT was challenged. The observation of the CAT extracted B
by the High Court in the order ofCWP No. 11812-CAT of2000 reads as under:

"5. We have been taking a view that preference clause can be operated
by any department where they find that other things are equal amongst
two candidates who are found most meritorious, may be having equal
marks in the middle standard. When other things are equal amongst C
..,._ such candidates, resort can be taken to the preference clause and that
is only situation where it can be operated and enforced."

11. The High Court based upon the above extracted observation has
held:
D
"Without calling upon the other side, we are of the view that
where the Tribunal has used the words that circular dated November
27, 1997, was being struck down, it was in the sense that the way the
petitioners had interpreted the circular it was not well founded and the
interpretation of the circular should be as given in para 5 of the E
judgment of the Tribunal, which has already been quoted above. We,
as a matter of abundant caution, hold that the circular dated November
27, 1997, will not stand quashed but the petitioners will implement the
same in the manner as interpreted by the Tribunal in para 5 of the
judgment which has already been quoted above."
F
12. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant is before
this Court.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having examined
in detail the material on record, we are of the view that the order of the High
Court maintaining the order of the CAT is wrong and cannot be sustained. G
14. We have perused the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions dated 24.03.1993
formulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts, on the subject of revision of educational qualifications
:. . prescn"bed for recruitment to various categories of ED Agents. Sub-clause (iv)
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A of Clause 2 of those Guidelines/Norms/Instructions prescribes th~t the minimum
educational qualifications for ED Delivery Agents, ED Stamp Vendors and
other categories of ED s4ould be 8th standard. Preference may be given to
the candidates with Matriculation qualification. However, it is specified that
no preference should be given for any qualification higher than MatriCulation.
It appears from the record that the Directorate, Post Offices, vide another
B Circular No.19-17/97-ED & Trg. dated 21.11.1997, has decided that the merit
o(candidates for seiection to the post of EDDA should be on the basis of
the marks obtained in preferential qualification (i.e. Matriculation) if such
candidates are available, otherwise on the basis of the essential qualification,
viz. 8th standard.
c 15. Copies of the latest Guidelines/Norms/Instructions issued by
respondent No. 1 were signed by CPMG, HR Ambala respondent No. 2 herein
who forwarded them to the Superintendent of Post Offices in his Division.
Superintendent of Posts, Kurukshetra, Dn. 136118 circulated the Circular of
respondent No. 1 to all recruiting units established in his Division for
D information and necessary action. Consequently, Assistant Superintendent of
Post Offices, North Division, Kurukshetra - respondent No.•3 herein issued
requisition to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the names of eligible
candidates for filling up the post of EDDA. In addition, applications were
invited from open m'arket through public notice. In all, 20 candidates including
E the appellant and Dhararnpal - respondent No. 4 herein appeared before the
Selection Committee constituted for the selection to the post of EDDA. The
Selection Committee had selected the appellant on the basis of the preferential
qualification because he has, admittedly, secured 55.8% marks in comparison
to respondent No. 4 who secured 41 % marks in the Matriculation examination.
It is not in dispute that the requisite minimum qualification for the post of
F EDDA has been prescribed as 8th standard. The selec~ion of the appellant
has been made by the Selection Committee strictly in accordance with the
latest Guidelines/Norms/Instructions framed by the Department from time to
time.

,16. These Guidelines/Norms/Instructions clearly stipulate that if the
G candidates, who have passed Matriculation examination, are available ·for .....
.selection to the posts of EDDA, the selection should be made by the Selection
Committee on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in preferential
qualification (i.e. Matriculation) and in the absence of Matriculate candidates,
the selection has to be made on the basis of essential qualification, ~iz.· 8th
H standard. It appears that the CAT as well as the High Court, both have lo~t
SURINDERSINGH v. U.0.1. [LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,J.] 581

sight of the object and import of the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions dated ,A
21.07.1998 laid down by a Competent Authority. The CAT is not competent
to lay down criteria for the selection and appointment to the post of EDDA.
It is the prerogative and authority of the employer to lay down suitable
service conditions to the respective posts.

17. In our view, in service jurisprudence the prescription of preferential B
qualification not only refers to numeric superiority but is essentially related
to better mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities,
which are entrusted to the candidates after their selection to a particular post.
All the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The
basic object of prescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut off level C
for a particular job in accordance with the minimum competency required for
the performance of that job. The object of prescribing preferential qualification
is to select the best amongst the better candidates who possess more
competence than the others. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 puts a limit with
respect to preferential qualification by way of a clear stipulation that no
preference should be given to the qualification above Matriculation. Hence, I)
the preferential qualification was considered to be more effective and efficient t,.
··~
and also it was a clear assumption that a candidate possessing the same is
best suited for the post in question.

18. Shri U.S. Puria, Assistant Director General (ED), Department of
Posts, New Delhi, in his counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. E
1 arid 2 has stated that Dharam Pal, respondent No. 4, was appointed
provisi 'nally as EDDA by the Area Sub-Divisional ASPOs with effect from
26.04.1997 on compassionate ground in place of his father Babu Ram who
died on 26.04.1997 while working as EDDA, Tangore, B.O. in Kurukshetra. He
stated that the appointment of respondent No. 4 was subject to the approval F
of Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala. Respondent No. 4
worked as EDDA from 26.04.1997 to 31.03.1999. The Circle Selection Committee
later on has found that two sons of the deceased Babu Ram were already in
employment, therefore, the claim of respondent No. 4 for appointment to the
post of EDDA on compassionate grounds was rejected. The charge of EDDA,
Tangore B.O., Kurukshetra was handed over to Budh Singh, a regular ED G
employee of Kurnkshetra Division, who was on deputation to Army Postal
Service and discharged from the said service on 15.03.1999. Budh Singh
joined service on 31.03 .1999 when respondent No. 4 was relieved from the job.
However, Budh Singh absented from the duty w.e.f. l.4.1999. Departmental
proceedings were initiated against Budh Singh as per the Rules. Finally, Budh H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A Singh was removed from the service by the Competent Authority vide order
dated 15.09.1999. In these circumstances, the post of EDDA was notified to
the Employment Exchange and general public by the respondent-Department.
The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had justified the selection and appointment of
the appellant on the basis of marks secured by him in Matriculation
B examination, which according to them is a preferential qualification, as per the
Guidelines/Norms/Instructions prescribed by the Competent Authority.

19. In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar and Anr.,
(1993] 2 SCC 310, this Court in paragraph 13 held as under:

"13 ..... There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the employer
c preferring a candidate with higher qualification for service. It is well
settled by a catena of decisions that classification on the basis of
higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative
efficiency is permissible under our constitutional scheme."

20. Further, in paragraph 15 it is observed as under:
D
"15 ... .It is true that notwithstanding the preference rule it is always
open to the recruiting agency to prescribe a minimum eligibility
qualification with a view to demarcating and narrowing down the field
of choice with the ultimate objective of permitting candidates with
higher qualifications to enter the zone of consideration."
E
21. In view of the above-stated factual situation and settled position of
law, the orders of the CAT as well as the High Court cannot be sustained.

22. For the above-said reasons, the appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
F The judgment and order dated 27.09.2000 of the High .court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos.13280-CAT/2000 confirming the order of
the CAT, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, in O.A. Nos.171 HR/2000 is quashed
and set aside. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to take necessary steps
for facilitating the resumption of the duties of the appellant on the post of
EDDA. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
G to costs.

RP. Appeal allowed.