REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 5-8 IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8343-8344 OF 2011  [Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.20152-20153 of 2010]

Bedanga Talukdar     ... Appellant

VERSUS

Saifudaullah Khan & Ors.        …Respondents  

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.  

2. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  impugned  

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  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  

“respondent No. 3”) was directed to examine the entitlement  

- 1 -

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 .

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  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  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  

Disabilities [Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and  

Full Participation], Act,1995.  

- 2 -

5. Consequently, a Public Interest Litigation being P.I.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 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.  

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 [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  Combined  

- 3 -

Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2006 for screening  

candidates for the Main examination for the 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,  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 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  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  

- 4 -

documents  in  the  office  of  the  Commission  or  in  the  

examination  hall  before  the  commencement  of  the  

preliminary  examination.   Respondent  No.1  had  been  

certified  by  the  District  Medical  Board,  Dhubri,  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 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 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.    

- 5 -

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 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 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 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  

- 6 -

of Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50%, along with the  

other certificates and testimonials at the time of interview.  

The Commission,  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.   

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 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 Commission  

making  a  grievance  that  his  candidature  had  been  

- 7 -

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 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  

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 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  

- 8 -

dated  10th December,  2009  addressed  to  the  

Deputy  Secretary  of  the  Commission,  stating  that  all  

necessary  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, 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.  

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 revised list.  The reservation in the category  

of Locomotor Disability was not the issue before the Court  

- 9 -

in  the  aforesaid  writ  petition.   The  procedural  anomaly  

related to women candidates.   

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 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 8th February, 2010.  The High Court granted an ex-parte  

order on 11th February, 2010 directing respondent No.3 not  

to issue the appointment / posting orders to the appellant.   

16. In  the  counter  affidavit  filed  to  this  writ  petition,  

respondent No.3 specifically stated that the documents had  

- 10 -

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  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 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 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  

- 11 -

physically  handicapped  (Locomotor  Disability)  candidate.  

Upon a 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 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 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 in the minutes of  the meeting dated 21st May,  

2010 would indicate that the Commission had resolved not  

to consider the case of respondent No. 1 for selection for  

appointment  against  the  solitary  post  earmarked  for  

physically handicapped candidates on the ground that the  

- 12 -

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 the light  

of the directions given 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 been observed by the  

High Court that the question of belated submission of the  

identity card having been already answered by the Court  

and directions 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 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 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.”

- 13 -

These directions are challenged by the appellant in these  

appeals.

18. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

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  advertisement  No.6/2006  dated  

10th 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 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  

- 14 -

application  form,  which  will  be  supplied  to  them.   All  

candidates  applying  in  the  category  of  persons  with  

Locomotor  Disability  upto  50%  were  required  to  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  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  

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  

- 15 -

is made about 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  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  inflexible  

leaving  no  room  for  elasticity”.   Learned  senior  counsel  

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 January,  

2010.   

21. According  to  the  learned  senior  counsel,  the  High  

Court has proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the  

- 16 -

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  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  

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  “Information  to  the  candidates  on  the  Combined  

Competitive  (Main)  Examination”.   Instruction  No.  13  

clearly  stipulates  that  “any  application  form  received  

without  all  or  some  of  the  enclosures  is  liable  to  be  

summarily  rejected.   Any  enclosure  which  was  not  sent  

- 17 -

along with the application earlier but sent subsequently 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  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 counsel has also  

relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka  

Public  Service  Commission  &  Ors. Vs. B.M.  Vijaya  

Shankar & Ors.  1   

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  by  respondent  No.3  on  8th January,  2010.  

Respondent No. 1 had to file W.P. (C) No. 950 of 2010 as  

1 (1992) 2 SCC 206  - 18 -

respondent No.3 again illegally  rejected his  candidatures.  

He, therefore, challenged the selection of the appellant.   

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 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 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 the time of interview.  However, when the  

select list was published on 15th June, 2009, the name of  

respondent No.1 was not included therein.  It was in fact  

- 19 -

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 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 scored lesser marks.  In the representation, respondent  

No.1  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 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  

- 20 -

same is a compulsory document.   Respondent No.1 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  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  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  the  necessary  

documents was treated as provisional.   These candidates  

- 21 -

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  

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 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  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  

- 22 -

of  one  applicant  namely  Smt.  Anima  Baishya  was  

specifically 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  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 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  scrupulously  

maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms  

and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is  

- 23 -

specifically reserved.  Such a power 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 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  to  apply  and  compete.  

Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due  

publication  would  be  contrary  to  the  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  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  

- 24 -

be permissible as 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  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:-        

“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 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.

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  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  

- 25 -

right/benefits etc. not furnished with the application  or  at  the  time  of  interview  but  submitted  after  interview was accepted or not.  From the record, it  was found that prior to Shri S. Khan’s case, one Smt.  Anima Baishya had submitted an application before  the Chairperson on 26.2.2009 claiming herself to be  a S.C. candidate for the first time.  But her claim for  treating  herself  as  a  S.C.  candidate  was  not  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  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. 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  No.1  on the  basis  of  identity  card  submitted  

after the selection process was over, with the publication of  

the select list.  - 26 -

32. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed and the  

impugned  judgment  and  order  dated  4th March,  2010  

passed 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.  

……………………………..J.                     [Altamas Kabir]

……………………………..J.   [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

New Delhi; September 28, 2011.          

- 27 -