BASHARAT IQBAL Vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is yet another case wherein this Court is called upon to decided whether a candidate seeking public employment should possess prescribed eligibility qualification on the last date of receipt of the application or on the date of intrerview?

(2.) THE petitioner is a candidate for the post of Lecturer in English. He passed his M.A. in English but managed to secure only 54.4 percent marks. He, thereafter thought of improving his merit position and appeared again in February, 1993 in some subjects. Meanwhile the Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as the Commission) issued notification No. 4 dated 11 -3 -1993 inviting applications for ten posts of lecturers in English. This notification laid down that a candidate must possess masters degree in the relevant subject with atleast 55 percent marks or its equivalent grade and good academic record. Last date for receipt of applications from candidates was fixed on 14 -5 -1993 which was subsequently extended to 31 -5 -1993. The notification also provided that applictions received from persons not possessing the minimum basic qualification as prescribed above on the last date of receipt shall be rejected. It, however, stated that the applications which are deficient in respect of any certificate(s) indicated in the instructions sheet for candidates, may be entertained by the commission subject to the making up of deficiency within a stipulated period. It did not contain any note in terms of ruley37 of the J&K public Service Commission (Business & Procedure) Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) regarding provisional entertainment of applications from such candidates whose result had not been declared on the last date of receipt of applications.

(3.) THE petitioner though admittedly eligible and not possessing 55% marks in the relevant subjects also applied on 29 -4 -1993 and enclosed a note stating that he had appeared in the course Nos. 401 & 402 of first smester to improve his percentage of marks but his result was still awaited and requested for entertainment of his application. His result was finally declared on 9 -9 -1993 and he secured 56% marks thus rendering him eligible for selection to the post of lecturer. He thereafter submitted an application to the Commission along with the requisite certificate in support of his eligibility. The Commission, however, rejected his application and conveyed to him so vide its letter dated 27 -9 -1993. Meanwhile the petitioner filed this petition on 25 -9 -1993. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5 -10 -1993 requiring it to file objections. It was directed to interview the petitioner and to keep his result apart vide order dated 27 -12 -1993. The writ petition was subsequently amended by the petitioner challenging the deletion of Rule 37 of the Rules (supra and praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to entertain his application as also for a declaration to declare all such candidates eligible who had appeared in the qualifying examination/examination for improvement of division or performance but whose result was declared after the last date of the receipt of the applications but before the interview.