NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7390 OF 2011  [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.20405 OF 2008]

V. GOPAL      … APPELLANT

VERSUS

P. GANASELVAUDAYAKUMARI & ORS.   … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

Aftab Alam, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. On December  5,  1991,  a  notice  was  issued under  the  hand of  the  

Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, inviting  

applications from persons working in the department for appointment to the  

post of P.G. Assistant in M.A. (Political Science) in the Government Higher

Secondary School for the blind. The last date for submission of application  

was December 15, 1991. The educational qualifications required from the  

candidates  were  a  Master’s  degree  in  Political  Science  and a  Bachelor’s  

degree in Education. Apart from the academic qualification prescribed in the  

notice,  Government  Order  No.511-Education  dated  March  16,  1959,  

provided that no person would be eligible for appointment to a post of the  

School Assistant in Government School for the blind unless he possessed the  

Government  Certificate  of  Competency  in  teaching  the  blind.   The  

Government  Order,  however,  made  a  relaxation,  in  case  no  suitable  and  

qualified person was available and in that regard provided as follows:-

“Provided that if a suitable and qualified persons not available a  person not possessing the certificate or Senior Diploma may be  appointed but such person must obtain the Senior Diploma in  the teaching the Blind within a period of Four Years from the  date of his appointment to the said post.”

The  respondent  -  P.  Ganaselvaudayakumari  was  at  that  time working  as  

Secondary  Grade  Teacher  in  the  Government  School  for  the  blind,  

Sivaganga.   She possessed the necessary academic qualifications and she  

also had the  Senior  Diploma in  teaching the  blind as  required under  the  

Government Order dated March 16, 1959.  She made an application for the  

post of P.G. Assistant (Political Science) but instead of sending it directly to  

the office of the Director, Social Welfare, she submitted it to the Headmaster  

2

of  her  school,  on  December  12,  1991.   The  Headmaster  forwarded  her  

application to the District Social Welfare Officer, Sivaganga, with whom it  

lay  for  some  time  before  he  finally  sent  it  with  a  covering  letter  dated  

December  24,  1991  to  the  Office  of  the  Director,  Social  Welfare.  The  

application was, thus, received in that office on December 25, 1991, ten days  

after  the last  date  for submission of  applications.   In the meanwhile,  the  

appellant was appointed to the post  vide  proceedings dated December 24,  

1991.  

3. It may be noted here that at the time of his appointment, the appellant  

did  not  possess  the  Senior  Diploma in teaching the  blind and hence,  his  

appointment was subject to the condition that he should take the diploma in  

question within a period of three years, failing which he would be reverted  

back as Assistant.  

4. The  respondent  challenged  the  appointment  of  the  appellant  in  

preference  to  her  by  filing  O.A.  No.5603/1993  before  the  Tamil  Nadu  

Administrative Tribunal, Madras.  The Tribunal held it was not open to her  

to question the appellant’s appointment since her own application was not  

submitted within time and, therefore, could not be taken into consideration.  

The Tribunal  further  noticed that  by the  time the case  was  taken up for  

hearing  before  it,  the  respondent  had  acquired  the  Senior  Diploma  in  

3

teaching  the  blind.   The  Tribunal,  therefore,  did  not  interfere  with  his  

appointment and disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the Director of  

Rehabilitation  of  the Disabled to consider the case of  the respondent for  

posting as P.G. Assistant in the available vacancy or in the next vacancy.   

5. Dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the respondent moved the  

Madras High Court in W.P. No.8482/2003. The High Court, very curiously,  

held  the  appellant  responsible  for  the  District  Social  Welfare  Officer,  

Sivaganga, not sending the respondent’s application so as to reach the office  

of the Director, Social Welfare, in time. The suspicion of the High Court is  

based solely on the fact that the appellant worked as an Assistant in the same  

Directorate. The High Court observed:

“Therefore,  it  may  be  possible that  the  fourth  respondent,  working  as  an  Assistant  in  the  very  same  Directorate,  after  coming  to  know  of  the  petitioner’s  eligibility,  might  have  successfully  blocked the  petitioner’s  application  reaching  the  Directorate.   The  allegation  of  mala  fide  was  also  alleged  against the second respondent Department in paragraph 6 of the  Original  Application.   It  was  not  denied  by  the  official  respondents.”

                                                                                               (emphasis added)

The High Court further observed:

“The needle of suspicion points towards the fourth respondent’s  complicity in this matter, who was working in the very same  Directorate  and who belonged to  the  Ministerial  service  and  

4

who  had  no  teaching  experience  whatsoever  before  his  appointment, was having an eye over the very same post.”

The High Court further observed that the application of the appellant was  

liable  to  be rejected  on the  threshold  because  he belonged to  ministerial  

service and did not have any teaching experience.

6. The High Court, accordingly, directed for the removal of the appellant  

from the post of P.G. Assistant (Political Science) and for the appointment  

of the respondent in his place. The appellant has now brought this matter  

before this Court.  

7. We completely fail to see how the High Court could make such grave  

and serious  charge against  the  appellant  purely  on assumption.  We have  

gone through the petition filed by the respondent before the Administrative  

Tribunal.  In paragraph 7 of her petition she stated as follows:

“The  applicant  states  that  though  she  had  been  representing to respondents from 2.4.90 itself that she is  fully  qualified  to  the  post  of  P.G.  Assistant,  her  representations went unanswered.  The respondent could  have  rejected  her  representation  dt.  24.6.92  that  Mr.  V.Gopal had been appointed.  But suppressing this fact of  irregular  appointment  in  a  malafide  manner  the  respondents had not replied to the representations of the  applicant.   Hence  the  action  of  the  respondents  is  discriminatory and arbitrary.”                  

5

She never even alleged that the appellant was instrumental in causing her  

application to reach the office of the Director, Social Welfare, long after the  

last date for submission of applications. There was, therefore, no occasion  

for the appellant to give any reply to her vague allegation of mala-fide.

8.     Secondly, we see no sanction for the view that a person belonging to  

the ministerial service was not qualified for appointment to the post.  From  

the plain language of the appointment notice,  there is  no such restriction  

discernible.

9. The respondent’s challenge to the appointment of the appellant on the  

post of PG Assistant must, therefore, fail for the simple reason that her own  

application in response to the appointment notice was submitted long after  

the  last  date  fixed  in  the  notice  and  hence,  it  could  not  be  taken  into  

consideration.  

10. We repeatedly asked the counsel why did the respondent not sent her  

application to the Director’s office directly and why she submitted it to the  

Headmaster of her school. Was there any rule or administrative instruction  

obliging her to make the application only through the head of the institution  

where  she  was working at  that  time?  (In  the  notice  inviting  applications  

there was no such restriction!) We were not made aware of any provision,  

statutory or administrative, making such restriction. It, therefore, cannot be  

6

said that the respondent was following any rule or instruction in adopting  

that  course.  If  her  application  reached  the  office  of  the  Director,  Social  

Welfare late, she alone is responsible for that. We, thus, find no merit in the  

respondent’s challenge to the appointment of the appellant  to the post  in  

question.

11. The matter, however, does not seem to end here. In the proceedings  

dated December 24, 1991, by which the appellant was appointed, the date of  

his  application  is  mentioned  as  July  17,  1991.  This  appears  to  us  quite  

inexplicable as the notice inviting applications is itself dated December 5,  

1991.   The  counsel,  appearing  for  the  appellant,  failed  to  give  any  

satisfactory explanation for this anomaly. We, therefore, feel that the whole  

process of selection and appointment was quite irregular and unsatisfactory  

and in those circumstances, we are unable even to sustain the appointment of  

the  appellant  to  the  post  of  P.G.  Assistant  (Political  Science).   We,  

accordingly, direct the concerned authority to take fresh steps for filling up  

the  said  post  in  accordance  with  the  rules.  The process  of  selection  and  

appointment must be completed within three months from today.  Needless  

to say that every eligible candidate for the post on the date of the notice for  

appointment would be entitled  to  make  application  and selection  will  be  

made in accordance with the rules.  

7

12. Since the appellant is working on the post for the past about 20 years,  

he would continue on it till a fresh appointment is made, as directed above.  

13. The  appeal  is  disposed  of  with  the  aforesaid  observations  and  

directions.   

……………………………J. (Aftab Alam)

……………………………J. (R.M. Lodha)

New Delhi; August 26, 2011.   

8