Bashir Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.6909 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5437 of 1994)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5437 of 1994)
Petitioner: Bashir Ahmad & Ors.
Respondent: State of Punjab & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.6909 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5437 of 1994)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5437 of 1994)
Judges: K. KAMASWAMY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 22, 1996
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Recruitment
Direct recruitment of Drivers in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Punjab – Driving licence and knowledge of Punjabi language upto middle standard were the prescribed qualifications – Appellants, who had initially worked as cleaners and thereafter promoted as Drivers in the Poultry Department, were retrenched later on being found surplus – Appellants had applied for direct recruitment but were not selected on the ground that they were not possessing the required qualifications – Held that the rule prescribing the qualification cannot be read down and the appellants not fulfilling the criteria cannot be considered for the recruitment – Appeal dismissed.
Recruitment
Direct recruitment of Drivers in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Punjab – Driving licence and knowledge of Punjabi language upto middle standard were the prescribed qualifications – Appellants, who had initially worked as cleaners and thereafter promoted as Drivers in the Poultry Department, were retrenched later on being found surplus – Appellants had applied for direct recruitment but were not selected on the ground that they were not possessing the required qualifications – Held that the rule prescribing the qualification cannot be read down and the appellants not fulfilling the criteria cannot be considered for the recruitment – Appeal dismissed.
Cases Reffered:
1. B.N. Saxena v. N.D.M.C., JT 1990 (3) SC 284. (Para 3)
2. State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., JT 1988 (4) SC 53 = 1989 (1) SCC 121. (Para 3)
2. State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., JT 1988 (4) SC 53 = 1989 (1) SCC 121. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made on February 22, 1994 in CWP No.12838/93. Admittedly, the appellants had worked initially as cleaners and thereafter they were promoted as Drivers in Poultry Department of the State of Punjab. Since they were found to be surplus, they were retrenched. When the Government had notified for direct recruitment in the Department of Animal Husbandry, the appellants also had applied for direct recruitment. They were not selected on the ground that they did not possess the required educational qualifications. Consequently, they filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that this Court in C.A. No.3496 of 1990 titled B.N. Saxena v. N.D.M.C. JT 1990 (3) SC 284 decided on July 25, 1990 read down the rule holding that after the initial appointments experience gained for a considerable length of time is itself a qualification for promotion and, therefore, requirement of further qualification was bad in law. He also relied upon another judgment in State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors. ((JT 1988 (4) SC 53 = 1989) 1 SCC 121). Relying thereon, it is contended that the rule prescribing educational qualifications as one of the qualifications for direct recruitment must be read down. So read down, since the appellants have the necessary experience, it must be construed to be a qualification for recruitment. The view taken by the High Court and recruitment authority is bad in law. We find no force in that contention. It is seen that for the direct recruitment as a driver, the rules prescribe two qualifications, namely, light vehicle driving licence and knowledge of Punjabi language upto middle standard. The Rules also prescribe promotion of 10% drivers from the lower rank of cleaner. Therein, it is provided that apart from the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment, the cleaner also must have an experience of a minimum period of 4 years. We are not concerned with regard to the promotion from the cadre of cleaners to the post of Driver within the quota of 10%. Therefore, the question of reading down the rule does not arise. We are concerned with the direct recruitment only. The Government in the rule have prescribed driving licence and also knowledge of Punjabi language upto middle standard to be the qualifications. Therefore, anyone who possesses those qualifications has to be considered for recruitment. Since, admittedly, the appellants are not fulfilling the said criteria, the dismissal of the writ petition cannot be said to be illegal.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made on February 22, 1994 in CWP No.12838/93. Admittedly, the appellants had worked initially as cleaners and thereafter they were promoted as Drivers in Poultry Department of the State of Punjab. Since they were found to be surplus, they were retrenched. When the Government had notified for direct recruitment in the Department of Animal Husbandry, the appellants also had applied for direct recruitment. They were not selected on the ground that they did not possess the required educational qualifications. Consequently, they filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that this Court in C.A. No.3496 of 1990 titled B.N. Saxena v. N.D.M.C. JT 1990 (3) SC 284 decided on July 25, 1990 read down the rule holding that after the initial appointments experience gained for a considerable length of time is itself a qualification for promotion and, therefore, requirement of further qualification was bad in law. He also relied upon another judgment in State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors. ((JT 1988 (4) SC 53 = 1989) 1 SCC 121). Relying thereon, it is contended that the rule prescribing educational qualifications as one of the qualifications for direct recruitment must be read down. So read down, since the appellants have the necessary experience, it must be construed to be a qualification for recruitment. The view taken by the High Court and recruitment authority is bad in law. We find no force in that contention. It is seen that for the direct recruitment as a driver, the rules prescribe two qualifications, namely, light vehicle driving licence and knowledge of Punjabi language upto middle standard. The Rules also prescribe promotion of 10% drivers from the lower rank of cleaner. Therein, it is provided that apart from the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment, the cleaner also must have an experience of a minimum period of 4 years. We are not concerned with regard to the promotion from the cadre of cleaners to the post of Driver within the quota of 10%. Therefore, the question of reading down the rule does not arise. We are concerned with the direct recruitment only. The Government in the rule have prescribed driving licence and also knowledge of Punjabi language upto middle standard to be the qualifications. Therefore, anyone who possesses those qualifications has to be considered for recruitment. Since, admittedly, the appellants are not fulfilling the said criteria, the dismissal of the writ petition cannot be said to be illegal.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
