KM REKHA SIDANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raise a common question. The petitioners in all these four petitions seek a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction commanding the respondents to allow them to appear before the interview board constituted by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Teachers in the Municipal Corproation of Delhi ('M.C.D.'for short). By an interim order, this Court directed that petitioners be interviewed but their results be withheld in case the petitioners are selected till further orders. There are three respondents. First respondent is the Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs; the second is the Staff Selection Commission ('S.S.C.' for short); and third is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Principal respondent is the S.S.C., and the M.C.D., for whose requirement of Assistant Teachers the S.S.C. has undertaken the process, has merely stated that it was for the S.S.C. to recommend the appointments and to undertake the necessary steps for filling up the posts of Assistant Teachers.

(2.) An advertisement as put in by the S.S.C. for conducting examination for selection to the post of Assistant Teachers in the M.C.D. The advertisement appeared in the Employment News dated 12/18 September 1992. The last date for receipt of the application forms from the candidates was 12 October 1992. The examination was to beB held on 7February 1993. Age limit for candidates w prescribed as 18-30 years as on 1 January 1993 but was relaxable in the case of certain categories. Educational qualifications were also prescribed as to who could apply for the post and it was mentioned that candidates who had yet to appear at the academic/certificate examination, or whose results had been withheld, or not declared on or before 1 January 1993 were not eligible. The contention of the petitioners is that this condition is arbitrary and in support of this submission reference was made to a Bench decision of this Court in Kanta Rani and others v. Staff Selection. Commission and others, 39 (1989) Delhi Law Times 330, where circumstances were similar as in the present case but for an earlier year. The petitioners therein had contended that in spite of the fact that last date for submission of applications was 10 October 1988, but it was provided that the candidates must possess the qualifications prior to 1 August 1988. The petitioner, though, acquired the qualifications after 1 August 1988 but prior to l0 October 1988. It was contended that the embargo placed by the S.S.C. was contrary to well recognised principles, and that there was no reasonable nexus between the objects sought to be hieved and the cut off date. The Bench, it will appear, upheld the contention of the petitioners and also relied on certain earlier observations by another Bench in a similar matter. The Bench, therefore, directed that petitioners becalled for interview. A direction was, therefore, issued to consider the petitioners for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the M.C.D.

(3.) The respondent-SSC has filed its counter-affidavit before us opposing the petition, and we may reproduce relevant portion of this counter-affidavit which is as under :-