MISS SAJIDA KHAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interference declined by the learned Single Judge as to the challenge raised by the Appellant on prescription of a minimum of 50% marks for Graduation (alongwith such other qualifications) as the basic requirement for selection and appointment to the post of 'Librarian', on contract basis, as notified in Annexure-P/1 Advertisement dated 06.07.2020, issued by the 2nd Respondent, is put to challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The factual matrix reveals that a post of Librarian was sanctioned for a newly established English Medium School "Utkrustha Angreji Madhyam, Shaskiya Narhardev Uccatare Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Kanker", which was sought to be filled up on contract basis and it was notified along with such other posts in Annexure-P/1 Advertisement dated 06.07.2020. The Appellant, who is a Graduate in Library Science and a Post Graduate in Commerce, besides having the qualification of Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications, as reflected from Annexure-P/2 collectively, responded to the Advertisement and participated in the process of selection. It is stated that, as per Annexure-P/4 Merit List for the post of Librarian, the Petitioner has been declared as 'not eligible' for the post on the ground that she has secured only less marks in the Graduation which made her to file Annexure-P/5 objection before the 2nd Respondent on 05.08.2020, referring to Annexure-P/7 Rules for recruitment in the Chhattisgarh School Education Department which is known as Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 and asserting that no minimum percentage of marks for Graduation is stipulated in the said Rules for appointment to the post of Librarian. It is pointed out that an amended Merit List was issued by the 2nd Respondent by cancelling Annexure-P/4 Merit List, vide Annexure-P/6 dated 20.08.2020. Since the grievance was not redressed, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition contending that, since Annexure-P/7 Rules do not stipulate any minimum marks for Graduation even for regular appointment, it cannot be insisted for appointment to the post on contract basis. The prayers in the writ petition are in the following terms :

(3.) The course of action was sought to be sustained from the part of the Respondents contending that the merit was never sought to be compromised or diluted and it is very much within the purview of the power and prerogative of the Respondents to stipulate minimum 50% marks for Graduation, which was never against the Rules; as the Rules only prescribed the 'minimum' qualification. Reliance was sought to be placed on the law declared by the Apex Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Ors; reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362 to the effect that stipulation of the qualification is within the purview of the Employer. It was also contended that the writ petitioner having participated in the process of selection cannot take a 'u-turn' and challenge the process after coming to know that she has not been selected. Reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 in this regard. After hearing both the sides and after analysing the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions cited (supra), it was held by the learned Single Judge that by virtue of the principles laid down by the Apex Court as above and the fact that the writ petitioner had already participated in the selection process and further that the minimum mark stipulated has not diluted the prescribed qualification, but for serving to achieve the object in obtaining higher standard, there was no reason to interfere with the advertisement. This led to dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of any merit.