SLP (C) No. 33281 of 2016                                                                                              Page 1 of  7    

NON-REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO. 33281 OF 2016  

Thahira. P                 ......Petitioner  

Vs.  

The Administrator,  

UT of Lakshadweep  & Ors.              ....Respondents    

JUDGMENT  

Madan B. Lokur, J.  

1.    The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the judgment  

and order dated 9 th  September, 2016 passed by a Division Bench of the  

Kerala High Court in O.P. (CAT) No. 126 of 2016.  

2. The Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep  

(Directorate of Education) issued an advertisement inviting applications  

from local candidates between 18-25 years having a bachelor’s degree in  

Sociology from a recognised University for appointment to the post of  

Social Education Organizer.

             SLP (C) No. 33281 of 2016                                                                                              Page 2 of  7    

3. The petitioner Thahira applied for the post.  She had obtained a  

B.A. Degree in Malayalam and Sociology (Double Main) from the  

University of Calicut in Kerala.   Similarly, respondent No. 4 Kadeeja  

also applied for the post.  She had a B.A. Degree in Sociology (Single  

Main) from the same University that is the University of Calicut.  

4. The Administration considered all the applications and on 24 th   

May, 2011 published a check list of candidates who had applied for the  

post of Social Education Organiser.  The check-list mentioned the  

desirable qualification was BSW/MSW from a recognised University and  

as regards the degree of Bachelor in Sociology it was mentioned that   

Sociology would be given 85% weightage, BSW 5% weightage and  

MSW 10% weightage.  

5. Based on the above, the check-list showed that Thahira was Rank   

No.1 having obtained 48.03% marks while Kadeeja was Rank No.2  

having obtained 46.43% marks.    

6. The check-list was accompanied by a notice of the same date  

published for the information of all the applicants.  It was mentioned in  

the notice that in case of any mistake in the personal data or in the marks  

entered in the check-list, the same may be brought before the department  

till 1 p.m. on 26 th  May, 2011.  It was also stated in the notice that no  

complaint would be entertained after the stipulated time and date.

             SLP (C) No. 33281 of 2016                                                                                              Page 3 of  7    

7. On 27 th  May, 2011 that is after the cut-off date, Kadeeja is said to  

have filed an objection to the check-list.  The objection was limited to the  

allegation that Thahira did not have the required qualification for the post  

of Social Education Organiser since she had a degree in Malayalam and  

Sociology (Double Main). No objection was raised to the weightage  

given to the qualifications.  

8. It appears that the objection raised by Kadeeja was not accepted or  

not considered by the Administration being beyond time.   Be that as it  

may, a rank list was then published on 4 th  June, 2011 for the post of  

Social Education Organiser in which Thahira was placed at Rank No. 1  

and Kadeeja was placed at Rank No.2.  

9. On 7 th  June, 2011 Thahira was appointed to the post of Social  

Education Organiser on a temporary basis.  

10. Feeling aggrieved, Kadeeja preferred an application before the  

Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No. 666 of 2013 dated 18 th   

July, 2013 challenging the appointment of Thahira. The Administration  

filed a reply to the application to the effect that since no objection had  

been received to the check-list, within the prescribed time, the list was  

finalised and the rank list published.  

11. One of the issues adverted to before the Tribunal was whether the

             SLP (C) No. 33281 of 2016                                                                                              Page 4 of  7    

degree obtained by Thahira in Malayalam and Sociology (Double Main)  

was equivalent to a degree in Sociology (Single Main). The University of  

Calicut filed an affidavit on 4 th  September, 2013 to the effect that the  

question of equivalence had not been considered by the Academic Board  

of the University.  

12. By an order dated 15 th  March, 2016 the Tribunal allowed the  

application filed by Kadeeja and it was held that the composite marks  

obtained by the candidates should be taken into consideration for making  

the selection.  Consequently, the marks obtained by Kadeeja in her  

subsidiary subjects were also taken into consideration and on that basis it  

was held that the appointment of Thahira was not justified.   

13.  Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, a writ petition  

being O.P. (CAT) No. 126 of 2016 was preferred by Thahira before the  

High Court of Kerala.  The High Court upheld the order passed by the  

Tribunal.  In other words, the appointment of Thahira was struck down.  

14. At this stage, it may be mentioned that in the meanwhile the  

University of Calicut looked into the equivalence issue and concluded on  

or about 9 th  May, 2016  that the degree in Malayalam and Sociology  

(Double Main) was equivalent to a degree in Sociology (Single Main)  

awarded by the University.  That being the position, there cannot be any  

doubt that Thahira was entitled to be considered for appointment to the  

             SLP (C) No. 33281 of 2016                                                                                              Page 5 of  7    

post of Social Education Organiser.   

15. The High Court took into consideration the method of calculation  

of marks for deciding who should Rank No. 1 and who should Rank No.2  

and found fault with it.   We are afraid the High Court ought not to have  

travelled this path since this was not an issue raised by Kadeeja in her  

representation to the Administration.  Her only grievance was with regard  

to the eligibility of Thahira who had a degree in Malayalam and  

Sociology (Double Main) which, according to her, made Thahira  

ineligible since she did not have a degree in Sociology (Single Main).  

16. That apart, the check-list published on 24 th  May, 2011 gave the  

weightage of marks to be awarded.  It would have been more appropriate  

for the High Court to permit the Directorate of Education to proceed on  

the announced basis rather than to open the issue of award of marks  

which, in any case, was not the grievance made by Kadeeja.  In matters  

such as the present, it is advisable to leave the award of marks, weightage  

to be given etc. to the authorities who are dealing with the issue.   

Otherwise, any interference by the Court would amount to trenching on  

the wisdom and expertise of the selecting authority leading to avoidable  

litigation and uncertainty of employment as far as the candidates are  

concerned.  It is another matter if there is some ex facie perversity or   

             SLP (C) No. 33281 of 2016                                                                                              Page 6 of  7    

illegality in the process, but that is not so insofar as the present case is  

concerned.    

17. There also must be some adherence to the timelines held out to all  

candidates.  In the present case, all the candidates were informed that if  

they had any objection to the check-list, they should file an objection  

before 1 p.m. on 26 th

May, 2011.  Kadeeja did not file her objection  

within the prescribed time.  As such, the Administration was fully  

justified in not considering her objection or rejecting it as being beyond  

the prescribed time.  Adherence to such time limits, if not strictly  

followed, can again lead to uncertainties particularly if other candidates  

also start raising objections after the cut off date and providing some  

justification for the delay.  In such circumstances, the process of selection  

would get bogged down and unduly prolonged which would neither serve  

the interest of the concerned institution nor the management of affairs of  

the institution.    

18. Consequently, we are of opinion that the Tribunal and the High  

Court needlessly opened up a new avenue for challenging the  

appointment of Thahira as Social Education Organiser.  Both the Tribunal  

and the High Court ought to have exercised due restraint given the time  

limit for raising an objection by the Administration and the actual

             SLP (C) No. 33281 of 2016                                                                                              Page 7 of  7    

objection raised by Kadeeja.   

19. Accordingly, the order dated 15 th  March, 2016 passed by the  

Tribunal as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 9 th   

September, 2016 passed by the High Court are set aside.    

20. The petition is allowed.  No costs.   

     ............................................J  

                  (Madan B. Lokur)  

New Delhi;                ...........................................J  

April 17, 2018                                                   (Deepak Gupta)