Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4201 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12662 of 2014)

K. Radhika …..Appellant

Versus

T. Rajya Laxmi & Others …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. All the respondents have been served but none appears

for anyone of the respondents.

3. Aggrieved  by  a  judgment  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High

Court in Writ Petition No. 37437 of 2012 dated 2nd April, 2014,

1

Page 2

the third respondent therein preferred the appeal.

4. The  facts  leading  to  the  impugned  judgment  are  as

follows:

On 27.12.2011, a notification was issued by the office of

the  Metropolitan  Sessions  Judge,  Hyderabad  inviting

applications to fill  up 5 posts of  the Personal Assistants by

direct recruitment in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service, in the

unit  of  Metropolitan  Sessions  Judge,  Hyderabad.  The

notification prescribed the following qualifications:-

“1. Must  have  passed  Intermediate  Examination  conducted  by  A.P. State Board of Intermediate Education or any equivalent Examination.

2. Must  have  passed  A.P.  Government  Technical  Examination  in English Shorthand by Higher Grade, provided that if candidates, who have passed the examination by the Higher Grade are not available, those who have passed the examination by Lower Grade will be considered.

3. Must have passed Typewriting examination in English by Higher Grade conducted by the State Board of Technical Education and Training A.P. Hyderabad.

4. Preference will  be given to  the persons,  who possess Computer knowledge.”

5. 44  candidates  applied  in  response  to  the  notification.

The  selection  process  consisted  of  a  written  examination

followed by an interview.  In the said selection process, the

appellant was declared selected.   

2

Page 3

6. Challenging  the  selection  of  the  appellant,  the  first

respondent herein filed the above-mentioned writ petition on

the  ground  that  the  appellant  herein  was  having  only  the

qualification of a lower grade in shorthand whereas the first

respondent  herein  passed  the  examination  in  English

shorthand by higher grade and, therefore, the selection of the

appellant is contrary to the selection process and arbitrary.

The  High  Court  allowed  the  writ  petition  and  recorded  as

follows:-

“Now, we are called upon to decide whether language of the qualification clause is a mandatory character or not.  We are of the view that this clause is  mandatory  in  all  sense  since  words  “must  have”  used  in  the  said notification  in  clear  terms  it  indicate  so.   Hence,  going  thereby  first preference  shall  be  given  to  all  the  candidates  having  qualification  of Shorthand  English  by  higher  grade  and  in  the  event  no  candidate  is available  from  higher  grade,  next  lower  grade  candidate  has  to  be considered.  To be very specific, no initiative shall be made to invite any application  from  the  candidates  possessing  qualification  of  English Shorthand by lower grade,  until  required  number  of  candidates  having qualification of Shorthand by lower grade is found to be unsuitable.  Thus, at the first instance, respondent no. 3 was not eligible to be considered when a number of  Shorthand English  by higher-grade candidates  were found being considered.  Selection ought to have been kept confined to candidates having qualification of English Stenography by higher grade, after having found non-suitability amongst those candidates, candidates of the category of third respondent should have been invited.”

7. We regret to say that it is rather difficult to understand

the substance of the above extracted para, we hazard a guess

3

Page 4

that in substance,  the High Court held that so long as the

candidates  who have  passed  the  English  Shorthand Higher

Grade Examination are available, candidates with shorthand

lower grade can not be considered.

8. There  is  no  finding  by  the  High  Court  that  suitable

candidates with Shorthand higher grade are available.  If the

procedure required by the High Court was to be followed, there

would be avoidable wastage of time.  

9. On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant

pointed to the copy of the answer script of the first respondent

herein. It consists of innumerable errors.   We only hope that

it is not the desire of the High Court that such candidates are

required to be appointed merely because they have the higher

grade qualification. In  the  circumstances,  we  are  of  the

opinion  that  the  selection  process  should  not  have  been

interfered with.

4

Page 5

10. We,  therefore,  allow  the  appeal  and  set  aside  the

judgment under appeal.  No costs.

…................................J.                               (J. Chelameswar)

…….............................J.                                                    (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

New Delhi May 5, 2015

5