M.D TNSTC Vs R.S.KAVITHA .
Bench: SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,ANIL R. DAVE
Case number: C.A. No.-000619-000619 / 2013
Diary number: 4214 / 2011
Advocates: T. HARISH KUMAR Vs
SHALU SHARMA
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 619 OF 2013 [Arising out of S.L.P (C) No.4424 of 2011]
The Managing Director, TNSTC & Anr. .. Appellants
VERSUS
R.S.Kavitha & Ors. ..Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court.
3. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 –
R.S.Kavitha does not fulfill the height
qualification as prescribed for appointment to the
post of Conductor under Rule 59(b) of the Appendix-
III of the Service Rules. In spite of respondent
No.1 – R.S.Kavitha not fulfilling the aforesaid
qualification, a direction has been issued by the
learned Single Judge to the appellant-Corporation
to consider her candidature, which has been upheld
by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Page 2
2
4. We are unable to subscribe to the views
expressed by the High Court. Such relaxation in the
height qualification unless provided for in the
recruitment rules and given due publicity in the
notification inviting applications would be in
violation of the Rules. This apart, it would be in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India as numerous other candidates, who would be
below the prescribed height, might have not applied
for the advertised post. The impugned judgment of
the High Court does indicate the existence of any
provision of relaxation of the minimum height
criteria. The learned counsel for the respondents
has also not pointed out any provision in the
recruitment rules providing for relaxation of any
qualification. Therefore, it is not possible to
uphold the direction in relation to Respondent
No.1. So far as respondent No.2 – M.Revathi is
concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for
the appellants that her candidature was rejected
only because she had failed to produce the
necessary certificate showing that she was
qualified to administer First Aid, at the time of
Page 3
3
interview. This is not a mandatory requirement
either under the recruitment rules or any statutory
instructions. In any event, learned counsel for the
appellants has accepted that her candidature can be
considered, provided she produces the necessary
certificate even at this stage. It is accepted that
she fulfils the prescribed qualifications under the
rules. In view of the above, we see no reason as to
why her candidature cannot be considered upon such
a certificate being produced by respondent No.2 –
M.Revathi.
5. The impugned judgment of the High Court
cannot be sustained so far as it relates to
respondent No.1 and the same is set aside. The
appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
…………………………………………………….J [Surinder Singh Nijjar]
…………………………………………………J. [Anil R. Dave]
New Delhi; January 18, 2013.