relaxation of the Rule was impermissible as there was no mention about the relaxation in the advertisement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.1961 of 2019
[ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 31539 of 2012 ]
SANJAY K. DIXIT AND OTHERS .... Appellants
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
....Respondents
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
4. By relying on a judgment of this Court in
Bedanga
Talukdar v.
Saifudullah Khan & Ors.1 the Division
Bench of the High Court held that relaxation of the Rule
was impermissible as there was no mention about the
relaxation in the advertisement. However, the first
relaxation by which candidates were permitted to submit
the certificate before 28th March, 2012 was upheld in
larger public interest as DOEACC did not issue the
certificate, for which the candidates could not be
penalized.
5. Originally, the selection was finalized on the basis of
the results announced on 21st May, 2012 and the
candidates who submitted certificates till 31st July, 2012
were appointed. However, by virtue of the judgment of
the Division Bench, candidates who produced their
certificates after 31st March, 2012 were removed from the
service. Aggrieved thereby, they have filed SLPs.
Unsuccessful candidates who did not find place in the
1 (2011) 12 SCC 85
9
select list have also assailed the judgment of the High
Court as, according to them, even the first relaxation
given for submission of certificates till 28th March, 2012
was arbitrary and illegal.
6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and the Respondents, we are of the opinion
that the impugned judgment does not warrant
interference for the reasons given below.
7. Admittedly, the Rules governing the selection to the
posts of Technician Grade-2 (Apprenticeship Electrical)
require every candidate to submit a DOEACC certificate
signifying completion of 80 hours CCC at the time of
interview. Such condition was made compulsory. The
advertisement also contained the condition regarding
submission of the certificate at the time of interview.
There is no doubt that there exists a power of relaxation
of any of the Rules which could be exercised by the
Chairman of the Corporation. It is nobody’s case that the
Chairman/ Managing Director was not competent to relax
the Rules. But, the submission made by the learned
counsel for the Writ Petitioners is that the relaxation
could not have been done as the advertisement did not
10
mention about a possible relaxation of the Rules. We find
force in the said submission made on behalf of the Writ
Petitioners as this Court in
Bedanga Talukdar (supra)
held as follows:
“29. .. .. .. In our opinion, it is too well settled
to need any further reiteration that all
appointments to public office have to be made
in conformity with Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In other words, there
must be no arbitrariness resulting from any
undue favour being shown to any candidate.
Therefore, the selection process has to be
conducted strictly in accordance with the
stipulated selection procedure. Consequently,
when a particular schedule is mentioned in an
advertisement, the same has to be
scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any
relaxation in the terms and conditions of the
advertisement unless such a power is
specifically reserved. Such a power could be
reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even
if power of relaxation is provided in the rules,
it must still be mentioned in the
advertisement. In the absence of such power
in the rules, it could still be provided in the
advertisement. However, the power of
relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due
publicity. This would be necessary to ensure
11that those candidates who become eligible
due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal
opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation
of any condition in advertisement without due
publication would be contrary to the mandate
of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.”
8. We are in respectful agreement with the above
judgment of this Court. Exercise of the power of
relaxation without informing the candidates about the
existence of such power would be detrimental to the
interests of others who did not possess the certificate and
did not take part in the selection process. We are unable
to accept the submission that selection is on the basis of
the performance of the candidates in the written test and
interview and that the DOEACC certificate is not an
essential requirement. The Rule as well as the
advertisement provide for submission of the certificate at
the time of interview, compulsorily. The Rule further
provides for production of the certificate as an additional
requirement for selection. The above stipulation in the
Rule as well as the advertisement cannot be ignored.
12
9. On the basis of the said findings, the point that
remains to be considered is whether the High Court was
right in upholding the relaxation in respect of candidates
who submitted the certificate before 28th March, 2012.
The High Court took note of the fact that the certificates
were not being issued by DOEACC to candidates who had
already completed the course. The learned Division
Bench of the High Court was of the opinion that there was
a genuine problem and in the interest of those
meritorious candidates who could not secure the
certificate for no fault of theirs, they could not be
penalized. The High Court placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in
Amlan Jyoti Borooah v.
State
of Assam & Ors.2 to support its view that relaxation can
be done in larger public interest.
10. The question that then arises is whether the High
Court could have granted such a relief after holding that
the relaxation of the Rule could not have been made.
The final relief in a case can be different from the
ratio
decidendi. It was held in
Sanjay Singh & Anr. v.
U.P.
2 (2009) 3 SCC 227 ¶ 40
13
Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Anr.3 as
follows:
“10. ... .... Broadly speaking, every judgment of
superior courts has three segments, namely, (i)
the facts and the point at issue; (ii) the
reasons for the decision; and (iii) the final order
containing the decision. The reasons for the
decision or the ratio decidendi is not the final
order containing the decision. In fact, in a
judgment of this Court, though the ratio
decidendi may point to a particular result, the
decision (final order relating to relief) may be
different and not a natural consequence of the
ratio decidendi of the judgment. This may
happen either on account of any subsequent
event or the need to mould the relief to do
complete justice in the matter. It is the ratio
decidendi of a judgment and not the final order
in the judgment, which forms a precedent. ..”
11. In view of the above, the conclusion of the High
Court in favour of those candidates who submitted their
certificate before 28th March, 2012 is correct and need not
be interfered with.