Service Lawyer: Mere holding of qualification does not entitle the person for appointment; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice L Nageswara Rao

The SC holds that the orders of the High Court passed in the present case are patently illegal and unwarranted. It was held that the respondent was initially appointed as Road Gang Mazdoor. She came to be appointed as Revenue Assistant in pursuance of the orders passed by the Madras High Court for the reason that she is qualified for such post. It was held that the qualification for the post is not the criteria for appointment to the public post as any appointment to a public post cannot be made merely on the basis of possessing required educational qualifications. It was further held that any appointment to a public post can be made in the manner provided by the applicable recruitment rules in terms of law enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or the Rules made in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of law and/or the rules, the executive instructions may also prescribe the eligibility conditions including the educational qualifications, experience, age limit for appointment to the post. In the present case, the respondent sought appointment as Revenue Assistant only on the basis of the fact that she possesses Diploma in Civil Engineering. It was further held that  the possession of Diploma in Civil Engineering is not entitlement to a public post unless such post is advertised and opportunity is given to all the eligible candidates to apply for the post in terms of applicable rules.

However, the greed of the respondent for further promotion or appointment to the higher post did not end. She wanted to be appointed as Town Planning Officer again on the strength of her qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering, for which, the Writ Petition was filed in the High Court by the respondent.

In the present case {COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & ANR. v. M.C. SHEELA EVANJALIN & ORS. }, the respondent on the basis of the order passed by the High Court sought appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector for the reason that she has Diploma in Civil Engineering with first class on August 6, 2014. On April 27, 2017, Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, Chennai rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that the post of Town Planning Inspector is governed by Tamil Nadu Municipal Town Planning Service Rules, 1970 and that the method of appointment for the post of Town Planning Inspector is either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the post of Town Planning Assistant Draughtsman. Whereas the post of Revenue Assistant is governed by Tamil Nadu Municipal General Service Rules, 19703 . Therefore, she is not holding a feeder category post for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector, and thus not eligible for appointment to the post of Town Planning Inspector. Inspite of that, the High Court directed appointment of the respondent as Town Planning Inspector - the said order was set aside by the SC.