DISTRICT COLLECTOR ANANTAPUR Vs. K SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners question the order dated 4th May, 2000 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 6121 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) The fact of the matter is not in dispute. The respondent herein belongs to the Scheduled Caste. She possesses I Class Bachelor degree in Library and Information Science (B.L.I.S.) from a recognised University. A vacancy meant for Scheduled Caste woman was notified, wherefor the Employment Exchange was notified. It was reported that there was no O.C. category candidate possessing B.L.I.S. Examination. The name of the respondent herein was forwarded by the Employment Exchange. She had not been appointed only on the ground that she does not hold the qualification of C.L.I.S. It is not in dispute that so far as course of C.L.I.S. is concerned, the same is a six-months' course whereas B.L.I.S. is a course for Basic Librarian post, the duration whereof is one year.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners would urge that keeping in view the fact that a particular qualification was notified as minimum qualification, the respondent herein cannot be said to have fulfilled the criteria laid down in the recruitment notification. We are afraid, having regard to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. The State is considered to be a model employer, as has been held by the apex Court in H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India. It is really curious that the State has taken such an unreasonable stand. Person having a better qualification cannot be denied appointment on the ground that the minimum qualification required is something else. Prescription of a minimum qualification is necessary so that all candidates must hold at least that qualification. But the same does not mean that a person with a higher qualification would not meet the requirement. In Y. Srinivasa Rao vs. ]. Veeraiah, the apex Court, while dealing with a case of allotment of Fair-Price Shop, held that preference to an uneducated man over an educated man would amount to allowing premium of ignorance, incompetence and consequent inefficiency. The apex Court observed that the same would amount to gross arbitrariness resulting in illegal discrimination. Yet again, in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, the apex Court clearly held that: