1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NOS.11853-11854  OF 2018  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS 30797-30798 OF 2017)

ZAHOOR AHMAD RATHER AND ORS ETC ..APPELLANTS  

VERSUS

SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD AND ORS ETC      ..RESPONDENTS  

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL  NO.11855 OF 2018  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO 31196 OF 2017)

JAVID AHMAD DAR AND ORS ..APPELLANTS  

VERSUS

NASEER AHMAD MIR AND ORS      ..RESPONDENTS  

REPORTABLE

2

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Civil Appeals @ SLP (C)Nos 30797-30798/2017:

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High

Court of Jammu and Kashmir dated 12 October 2017.  While allowing the

Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court set aside a judgment of a learned

Single  Judge and,  in  consequence,  directed that  the  writ  petitions shall

stand dismissed.

3. By a Government Order dated 4 December 1996, 23,297 posts were

created in various departments of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 5,330

fresh posts were created in the Power Development Department, including

among them 3,675 posts of Technician-III and 200 posts of Junior Engineer.

The qualification for  the post  of  Technician-III  was “Matric  with ITI”.  The

qualification  for  the  post  of  Junior  Engineer,  which  ranks  higher  in  the

hierarchy of posts, was a B E (electrical) / diploma (electrical).

4. On 23 February 2013, an advertisement was issued by the J & K

State Service Selection Board (SSSB) for filling up the posts of Technician-

III  in  the  Power  Development  Department  for  various  districts  including

3

Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal. Note 3 of the advertisement contained

the following stipulations, which every applicant was required to fulfil:  

“(3)  In  possession  of  the  prescribed  academic/ professional/  technical  qualifications  and  fulfil  all  other eligibility Conditions wherever required as shown against each  post  in  the  Annexures  by  or  before  last  date  of receipt / submission of application forms i.e. 31.3.2013”  

The advertisement also contained the following stipulation in Note 12:

“12. The prescribed qualifications reflect the bare minimum requirement of the job and mere possession thereof shall not entitle a candidate to be called for written test/ interview and  also  grant  weightage  to  the  higher  qualification  in relevant line / discipline as may be decided by the Board.”   

Annexure C 1 to the advertisement specified the qualifications prescribed

for each post which was advertised. For the post of Technician-III in the

Power Development Department, the prescribed qualification was:

“Matric with ITI in relevant trade.”     

5. The  appellants  applied  for  the  post  of  Technician-III.  The  first

appellant holds a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. Appellants 2, 3 and 4

hold a Diploma in Electronics and Communication. Appellants 5 and 6 hold

a  Diploma  in  Electrical  Engineering.  None  of  them  possesses  the  ITI

certification.

4

6. On 14 August 2014, a list of disqualified candidates was notified by

the SSSB. The appellants were not part of that list and were called for a

written test on 23 August 2014. On 20 November 2014, a notification was

issued  for  the  purpose  of  shortlisting  candidates  who  had  cleared  the

written test, for the interview. The notification reflected the category – open

or reserved – under which each candidate was considered. Interviews were

conducted for the districts of Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal at which the

appellants appeared.  

7. On 31  January  2015,  the  SSSB held  its  116th meeting  at  which,

among the subjects on the agenda, was the following:

“Agenda  No.  11.  During  the  course  of  scrutiny  of documents in the process of framing the selection lists for the  post  of  Technician-III  (Power  Development Department), it has been observed that the Convener of the Interview committee (in some districts) has conducted the interview of  candidates having Diploma in  Electrical Engineering provisionally while as in some other districts, the  candidates  having  Diploma  in  Electronics  and communication  Engineering,  Electrical  Engineering,  B.E. (Electrical) have been declared as not eligible for the post in question. Furthermore, the candidates having ITI trade in general Electronic Mechanic, Weldar (Gas & Electric), Instrument  Mechanic,  Weldar  (Gas  &  Arc),  Information Technology  and  Electronic  Systems  Maintt.  have  also been interviewed for the post in question.”     

8. The Minutes of the Meeting record that the following decision was

arrived at by the Board:

5

“ After threadbare discussion, it was decided that only ITI in  relevant  trade  viz  Electrician  has  to  considered  as prescribed in the advertisement Notification.”     

9. A select list was published on 23 April 2015. The appellants were not

included in the select list. The reason for the omission is that none of them

possessed  an  ITI  qualification.  Aggrieved  by  their  non-inclusion,  the

appellants  instituted  writ  proceedings  seeking  consideration  of  their

candidature for selection to the post of Technician-III on the basis of their

position in the merit list. The appellants sought the quashing of the select

list framed for the three districts without considering their position in merit

and desired the reframing of the select list.

10. The  learned  Single  Judge  by  a  judgment  dated  1  August  2017

allowed the writ petitions on the ground that it was not open to the SSSB to

exclude the appellants after the process of selection was set in motion and

they had been subjected to a written test as well as an interview. In the view

of the learned Single Judge, the rules could not have been changed after

the  selection  process  had  been  initiated,  particularly  since  the  list  of

disqualified  candidates  did  not  include  them.  The  learned  Single  Judge

noted  that  a  candidate  possessing  a  Diploma  –  electrical  is  entitled  to

appointment to the post of  Junior Engineer which ranks higher than the

post of Technician – III. Hence, in this line of reasoning, if the appellants

were eligible to hold a higher post, their qualification was adequate for the

6

post of Technician-III and a Diploma in Electrical Engineering pre-supposes

the acquisition of the lower qualification of Matric with ITI. In this view of the

matter, the select list was quashed and the SSSB was directed to reframe it

according to  the merit  secured by the  appellants  and other  candidates.

Directions were issued for making appointments on the basis of the select

list as reframed.  

11. In the Letters Patent Appeals which were filed before the High Court,

the Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The

Division Bench held that the advertisement mandated an ITI in the relevant

trade  as  a  condition  of  eligibility  and  the  SSSB  had  not  granted  any

weightage to  a  higher  qualification,  in  terms of  Note  12.  Moreover,  the

SSSB had categorically taken a decision on 31 January 2015 that it was

only an ITI in the relevant trade with a Matric qualification that meets the

prescribed qualifications. In arriving at this conclusion, the Division Bench

has inter alia  relied on a judgment of this Court in P M Latha v  State of

Kerala1.

12. Ms  Kaveeta  Wadia,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

appellants has underlined the significance of the provisions contained in

Note 12 to the advertisement dated 23 February 2013. The submission is

that the prescribed qualification of a Matric with ITI is “the bare minimum

1 (2003) 3 SCC 541

7

requirement  of  job”  and  the  Note  contemplates  that  weightage  can  be

granted to a higher qualification in the relevant line or discipline as may be

decided by the Board.  Learned counsel has buttressed her submissions by

urging that:

(i) a diploma is in fact a higher qualification than an ITI; and

(ii) ITI holders are entitled to a lateral entry to a diploma course in

Electrical Engineering.

Ms Wadia Placed reliance on a series of  advertisements issued by the

Board and on the mark-sheets of ITI with a lateral entry to the diploma

course. Devoting a considerable amount of industry to her research, Ms

Wadia has painstakingly placed on the record these documents in the form

of a compilation on the record. Ms Wadia urged that there is no prohibition

on  the  holder  of  a  diploma  in  seeking  appointment  as  Technician-III.

Besides the fact that there is an absence of a prohibition, learned counsel

submitted that Note 12 clearly indicates that the prescribed qualifications

constitute the bare minimum requirement of the job and that a candidate

with a higher qualification cannot be disqualified. This, in her view, is also

the position which has been adopted by the Board in an affidavit filed in

April  2001 before the High Court  in  Ravinder Singh v  State2.  Learned

counsel  relied  on the  orders  passed  in  those proceedings  by  the  High

Court. Finally it was urged, placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in

2 SWP 1706/2000 CMP No 2727/2000

8

Jyoti KK v Kerala Public Service Commission3 that where a person has

acquired  a  higher  qualification,  it  can  be  stated  to  presuppose  the

acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post.  In the absence

of any exclusion of a person holding higher qualifications, it was urged, a

diploma  holder  cannot  be  disqualified  from  applying  for  the  post  of

Technician-III.

13. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the SSSB by Mr

Riyaz Ahmad Jaan, learned senior counsel, that:

(i) While creating the post of  Technician-III,  the qualification which

was prescribed by government was that of a ‘Matric with ITI’;  

(ii) The SSSB is a creature of a statute and has a restricted mandate,

governed by its provisions;

(iii) The  Board  at  its  116th Meeting  resolved  that  in  terms  of  the

advertisement, only holders of an ITI with Matric would be eligible

for the post;

(iv) The  purpose  of  the  above  resolution  was  to  bring  about  a

uniformity in the selection process;

(v) Note 12 of the advertisement is only an enabling provision which

permits the Board to assign a weightage to a higher qualification

for the purpose of shortlisting;

3 (2010) 15 SCC 596

9

(vi) The Board decided against the grant of any such weightage; (vii)  No right  of the appellants has been infringed and the process

which has been followed is fair; and

(viii) The Board has plainly acted in pursuance of the position that the

prescribed qualification for the post of Technician-III is Matric with

ITI.  A diploma holder does not fulfil that requirement.   

Adopting these submissions, Mr Shoeb Alam, learned counsel for the State

of Jammu & Kashmir urged that the SSSB did not change the ‘rules of the

game’ mid-stream, as the learned Single Judge seemed to suggest. On the

contrary, the SSSB had affirmed the prescribed qualifications.

14. On  4  December  1996,  the  Government  of  Jammu  and  Kashmir

through its Planning and Development Department notified its sanction to

the creation of 23,297 posts. Among them was the post of Technician-III.

The qualification prescribed for the post of Technician-III is “Matric with ITI”.

15. The  Jammu  and  Kashmir  Civil  Services  Decentralisation  and

Recruitment Act, 2010 provides in Section 5 that appointment to district,

divisional and state cadre posts shall be made by the competent authority

on the basis of a selection made by the Public Service Commission or the

State Service Selection Board, as the case may be.  Section 6 provides

thus:

“Section 6. Appointment to District Cadre posts – A person shall be eligible to the appointment to a District Cadre post only if he,-

10

(i) is a permanent resident of the State; (ii) is a resident of the concerned district; and  (iii) possesses the prescribed qualification, eligibility and

experience  for  the  post  as  specified  under  the rules/orders regulating recruitment to such posts.”                                                             (emphasis supplied)

16. Rules of 2010 have been framed under the provisions of the Act4.

Rule 6 provides for the constitution of the Services Selection Board. The

Board has a three-tier set  up comprising of  selection committees at  the

state  level,  divisional  level  and  district  level.   Rule  13  sets  out  the

procedure for inviting applications and eligibility for different cadres.  Sub-

rules (1) and (3) of Rule 13 provide as follows:

“13. Procedure for inviting applications by the Board and eligibility for applying to different cadres, -  

(1) The Board shall advertise all State cadre vacancies referred to it by the requisitioning authority and invite applications for selection to the said posts from the permanent residents of the State and possessing the prescribed  qualification,  ability  and  experience  for such posts.  

…

(3) The district offices of the Board shall advertise the District cadre vacancies of the concerned district referred to it by the requisitioning authority and invite applications for selection to the said posts from such permanent residents of the State who are residents of that District and possess the prescribed qualification, eligibility  and  experience  for  such  posts.” (emphasis supplied)

Rule 14(1) provides for the preparation of a select list:

4 Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment Rules, 2010

11

“14. Procedure for preparation of select lists by the Board, - (1) The Services Selection Board shall hold a written test for all the eligible candidates who apply for the advertised post (s). The viva-voce of the eligible candidates shall be conducted by the designated Selection Committee of the Board.  The number of  candidates to be called for  viva- voce shall not be less than three times and more than five times the number of vacancies to be filled up. The final selection  shall  be  made  by  the  Board  on  the  basis  of marks / points obtained in viva-voce added to the marks / points obtained in the written test plus the weightage that may  be  provided  for  any  higher  /  additional  /  special qualification (on pro-rata basis).”

The select list which is finalised by the respective committees has to be

recommended to the requisitioning authority with the prior approval of the

Board, under Rule 14(4).  The said rule reads thus:

“(4)  The  select  list  so  finalized  by  the  respective Committees shall be equal to the number of vacancies for which  requisition  was  made  and  recommend  it  to  the requisitioning authority with prior approval of the Board.”

17. Under the above provisions as well as in the advertisement which

was issued by the Board, every candidate must possess the prescribed

academic/professional/technical  qualification  and  must  fulfil  all  other

eligibility  conditions.   The  prescribed  qualifications  for  the  post  of

Technician-III in the Power Development Department is a Matric with ITI in

the relevant trade.  The Board at its 116th meeting took notice of the fact

that in some districts, the interviews had been conducted for candidates

with a diploma in Electrical Engineering while in other districts candidates

with  a  diploma  had  not  been  considered  to  be  eligible  for  the  post  of

12

Technician-III. Moreover, candidates with an ITI in diverse trades had also

been interviewed for the post.  The Board resolved at its meeting that only

an ITI in the relevant trade namely the Electrical trade is the prescribed

qualification specified in the advertisement.

18. The learned Single Judge was persuaded to accept the submissions

of  the  petitioners  who  had  moved  the  Writ  Petition  primarily  on  two

grounds.  The first was that the Board had changed the rules in the midst of

the selection process. In holding thus, the learned Single Judge was clearly

in error.  The Board did not bring about any change in the rules or the

norms governing the selection mid-stream.   There was no deviation from

prescribed requirement for the post, of ITI with Matric.  In fact the Board

resolved  to  adhere  to  the  qualification  which  was  prescribed  in  the

advertisement.  An anomalous situation had arisen as a consequence of

which, despite the prescribed qualifications, interviews of diploma holders

had been conducted in some districts.  This was plainly in breach of the

conditions of the advertisement and was rectified by the Board. The second

ground which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the holder of

a diploma is eligible for the higher post of Junior Engineer and hence a

candidate who holds a diploma must be “pre-supposed” to hold the lower

qualification of an ITI. This line of reasoning appears to be based on the

judgment of a two Judge bench of this Court in  Jyoti KK (supra). Before

13

adverting to the decision in  Jyoti KK, it would be necessary to advert to

some of the decisions of this Court on the subject.

19. In  PM Latha (supra), a two judge Bench of this Court rejected the

contention  that  the  B.Ed.  qualification  is  a  higher  qualification  than the

Trained Teachers Certificate (TTC) and that a B.Ed. candidate should be

held to be eligible to compete for the post of a primary school teacher.  This

Court held:

“10. We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by  the  respondents  that  BEd  qualification  is  a  higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the BEd candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf  of the appellants,  it  is  pointed out before us that Trained Teacher's Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for BEd degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. BEd degree-holders, therefore, cannot  necessarily  be  held  to  be  holding  qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for  a  particular  post,  the source of  recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or BEd qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient  logic  and  justification  in  the  State  prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and  not  BEd. Whether  BEd  qualification  can  also  be prescribed  for  primary  teachers  is  a  question  to  be considered by  the  authorities  concerned but  we cannot consider  BEd  candidates,  for  the  present  vacancies advertised, as eligible.” 5

[See also Yogesh Kumar v Government (NCT of Delhi)]6.

20. The  decision  in  Jyoti  KK arises  from  a  case  where  the  Public

Service Commission had invited applications to the post of a Sub-Engineer

5 id at page 546 6(2003) 3 SCC 548

14

(Electrical)  in  the  Kerala  State  Electricity  Board.  The  qualifications

prescribed for the post were:

“2… 1. SSLC or its equivalent. 2. Technical qualifications—

(a)  Diploma  in  Electrical  Engineering  of  a recognised institution after 3 years' course of study,

OR

(b) a certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one of the recognised technical schools shown below with five years' service under the Kerala State Electricity Board,

… OR

(c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with five years' experience as IInd Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the Board.”

The appellants were holders of a B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering

or  a  Bachelors  degree  in  Electrical  Engineering.   The  Public  Service

Commission held that they were not eligible for selection.  Rule 10(a)(ii) of

the  Kerala  State  and  Subordinate  Services  Rules  1956  contained  the

following stipulation:

“10.  (a)(ii) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  these Rules  or  in  the  Special  Rules,  the  qualifications recognised  by  executive  orders  or  standing  orders  of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post  in  the  Special  Rules  and such  of  those  higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post.”                     (emphasis supplied)

A two judge Bench of this Court, while construing Rule 10 (a) held thus:

15

“7. It  is  no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower  qualification  prescribed  for  that  post  in  order  to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly  be stated to  presuppose the acquisition of  the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far.”7   

“8. Under  the  relevant  Rules,  for  the  post  of  Assistant Engineer,  degree  in  Electrical  Engineering  of  Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such  qualification  is  definitely  higher  qualification  than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree  in  Electrical  Engineering  presupposes  the acquisition  of  the  lower  qualification  of  diploma  in  that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.” 8

The  Court  also  noted  that  there  was  no  exclusion  of  candidates  who

possessed a higher qualification.   

21. The decision in Jyoti KK has been considered in a judgment of two

learned Judges in State of Punjab v Anita9. In that case, applications were

invited  for  JBT/ETT qualified  teachers.  Under  the  rules,  the  prescribed

qualification for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a two years’ course in

JBT  training  and  knowledge  of  Punjabi  and  Hindi  of  the  Matriculation

7 Id at page 598 8 Id at page 599 9 (2015) 2 SCC 170

16

standard or its equivalent. This Court held that none of the respondents

held the prescribed qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be

treated as a ‘higher qualification’.  Adverting to the decision in  Jyoti KK,

this Court noted that Rule 10(a)(ii) in that case clearly stipulated that the

possession of a higher qualification can pre-suppose the acquisition of a

lower  qualification  prescribed  for  the  post.  In  the  absence  of  such  a

stipulation, it was held that such a hypothesis could not be deduced:

“15. It  was  sought  to  be  asserted  on  the  basis  of  the aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents possess  higher  qualifications,  then  the  qualification  of JBT/ETT,  they  should  be  treated  as  having  fulfilled  the qualification stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  private  respondents, because  the  statutory  rules  which  were  taken  into consideration  by  this  Court  while  recording  the aforesaid  observations  in Jyoti  K.K.  case [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596]  ,  permitted  the  aforesaid  course.  The  statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 598, para 6)

“6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows: ‘10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these

Rules  or  in  the  Special  Rules,  the  qualifications recognised  by  executive  orders  or  Standing  Orders  of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post  in  the  Special  Rules and  such  of  those  higher qualifications  which  presuppose  the  acquisition  of  the lower  qualification prescribed for  the  post  shall  also be sufficient for the post..’”

(emphasis supplied)

A  perusal  of  the  Rule  clearly  reveals  that  the possession of higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of  the  lower qualification prescribed for  the posts.  Insofar  as  the present  controversy is concerned,  there  is  no  similar  statutory  provision

17

authorising the appointment  of  persons with  higher qualifications.”10                                (emphasis supplied)  

22. We are  in  respectful  agreement  with  the  interpretation  which  has

been placed on the judgment in  Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in

Anita (supra).  The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule

10(a)(ii).   Absent  such  a  rule,  it  would  not  be  permissible  to  draw  an

inference  that  a  higher  qualification  necessarily  pre-supposes  the

acquisition  of  another,  albeit  lower,  qualification.   The  prescription  of

qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the

employer  is  entitled  to  prescribe  the  qualifications  as  a  condition  of

eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand

upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a

qualification is not  a matter which can be determined in exercise of  the

power of judicial review.  Whether a particular qualification should or should

not be regarded as  equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting

authority,  to  determine.  The  decision  in  Jyoti  KK  turned  on  a  specific

statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-

suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule

in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In

this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court  was justified

in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the

10 id at page 177

18

conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications.

We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench.

23. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer,

may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the

job,  the  aptitudes  requisite  for  the  efficient  discharge  of  duties,  the

functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which

leads up to the acquisition of a qualification.  The state is entrusted with the

authority  to  assess  the  needs  of  its  public  services.   Exigencies  of

administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision

making.  The state as a public employer may well take into account social

perspectives  that  require  the  creation  of  job  opportunities  across  the

societal  structure.   All  these  are  essentially  matters  of  policy.   Judicial

review must tread warily.  That is why the decision in  Jyoti KK must be

understood  in  the  context  of  a  specific  statutory  rule  under  which  the

holding of  a  higher  qualification  which presupposes the acquisition of  a

lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post.  It was in the

context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.  

24. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of

an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course.  The point

of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of

candidates who had secured  an ITI certification before seeking a lateral

19

entry to a diploma course.  Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a

person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible.   

25. The submission based on Note 12, urged by Ms Wadia, cannot be

accepted.   The  stipulation  that  the  qualification  prescribed  is  the  bare

minimum  requirement  of  the  job  emphasises  that  it  is  an  essential

requirement, a threshold which cannot be dispensed with.  Under Note 12,

the  Board  is  entitled  to  assign  additional  weightage  for  a  higher

qualification.  Whether such a weightage should be assigned is a matter for

the Board to determine.  The SSSB did not assign an additional weightage

for a higher qualification. In not exercising an enabling power, no fault can

be  found  with  the  SSSB.  An  enabling  provision  postulates  a  discretion

which may or may not be exercised.  A candidate has no vested right to

assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional weightage to

a higher qualification.  Whether to do so or not is a matter for the Board to

determine.  All that Note 12 postulates is that the mere possession of the

prescribed  qualification  will  not  entitle  a  candidate  to  be  called  for  the

written test or interview.  The Board may shortlist among eligible candidates

by granting  a weightage to  a  higher  qualification in  the  relevant  line or

discipline.  But the words “as may be decided by the Board” in Note 12

indicate  that  the  Board  is  vested  with  a  discretion  in  pursuance  of  an

enabling power which it may or may not exercise.  

20

26. Ms Wadia, learned counsel appearing on behalf  of the appellants,

however, urged that a peculiar situation arises in the present case because

the appellants were permitted initially to appear for the written test and the

interview.  Their names were not contained in the disqualification list.  Ms

Wadia submitted that  the appellants would have become age barred by

now to pursue any future application. Recourse to our jurisdiction under

Article 142 is warranted particularly since the appellants have spent nearly

four years in pursuing their quest for the job of Technician III.  They had

even succeeded before the learned Single Judge. Hence,  the rigors of the

hardship, which the appellants confront, can be met by a suitable direction

for age relaxation in their case.  As we have noted in the earlier part of this

judgment, the appellants applied in 2013 in pursuance of the advertisement

that was issued by the SSSB. They  were pursuing their remedies in the

writ  proceedings which ultimately culminated in the order of  the learned

Single Judge dated 1 August 2017.  The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed

on 12 October 2017. Having regard to these circumstances, we are of the

view that the appellants should be granted an age relaxation to the extent

of four years should they apply for any other post that may be advertised

by  the  State  of  Jammu and  Kashmir  in  the  next  two  years.   The  age

relaxation of four years shall  be available to the appellants for any post

advertised  upto  30  November  2020.   Save  and  except  for  the  above

direction  in  regard  to  age  relaxation,  we  have  not  interfered  with  the

21

judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeals

shall, accordingly, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.    

Civil Appeal No.11855 of 2018 @ SLP (C)No 31196 of 2017:

27. Leave granted.

28. This  appeal  is  also  disposed  of  in  the  same  terms,  conditions,

observations  and  directions  as  in  Civil  Appeal  Nos.11853-11854

of 2018 @ SLP (C) Nos 30797-30798 of 2017.  

.....................................................J       [UU Lalit]

                                           .....................................................J               [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

New Delhi; December 05, 2018