AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
The State Eligibility Test (SET) is an eligibility criterion for the selection of Higher Secondary Teachers. A SET pass is stipulated as a mandatory qualification for Higher Secondary School Teachers as per Rule 6 Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959.
As per orders issued by the Government, the 3rd respondent has been entrusted with the responsibility to conduct the test based on the syllabus approved by the Board of Examinations. The test is conducted twice a year.
Exhibit P1 notification dated 27.12.2019 was issued by the 3rd respondent inviting applications from the students. The eligibility as stated in Ext.P1 is as follows:
The notification states that 50% marks in PG or equivalent grade and a B.Ed is the basic qualification fixed for candidates. An exemption is however granted to candidates who have acquired one of the basic qualifications. They should be in the final year of the other basic qualification. In other words, if the candidate is a post graduate and if she is pursuing B.Ed, she can apply only if she is pursuing the final year of the B.Ed Course. Candidates appearing for the SET examination are required to submit their PG/B.Ed certificate within one year from the date of declaration of the result of the SET examination or otherwise they will not be declared as passed the examination in that chance.
Ext.P2 is the prospectus issued by the 3rd respondent detailing the scheme of the test, requirement of pass, conditions of eligibility etc. What is of relevance is clauses 5.1 and 5.7 of the prospectus.
Conditions of Eligibility
5.1 Those who have acquired Master's Degree in the subjects concerned with not less than 50% marks or equivalent grade and B.Ed. degree in any discipline from any one of the universities in Kerala or have acquired these qualifications from any other university recognised as equivalent thereto are eligible to apply for the SET Feb - 2020 with certain exceptions as mentioned in the following paragraphs
*********** ******** ********
5.7. Candidates who have acquired their Master's Degree with the minimum required marks for eligibility to appear for SET and are undergoing the final year course for B.Ed Degree are eligible to appear for the test. Similarly candidates who have acquired their B.Ed Degree and are undergoing the final year of their Post Graduate Programme are also eligible to appear for the test. Such candidates must produce the Certificates of their qualifying examinations passed with the minimum required marks within one year from the date of publication of the results of the State Eligibility Test, failing which they shall be treated as disqualified.
Thus, those candidates who have acquired their Master's Degree with the minimum required marks for eligibility to appear for SET and are undergoing the final year course for B.Ed Degree only are eligible to appear for the test. Similarly, candidates who have acquired their B.Ed Degree and are undergoing the final year of their Post Graduate Programme are also eligible to appear for the test. As is evident from Exhibit P1, the candidates were to register for the test online between the period from 28.12.2019 and 10.01.2020.
The petitioners are Post Graduates and admittedly were pursuing their 1st-year B.Ed Course as on the date of notification.
The test got delayed due to the Pandemic. The test was held only on 10.1.2021 which meant that when they appeared for the exams, they were pursuing their final year B.Ed Course.
They all passed the test and results were announced as is evident from Exhibit P3 to P21 result sheets.
When the petitioners sought for issuance of SET certificates, the 3rd respondent refused the same on the ground that the petitioners were not eligible to appear for the test as they were not in the final year of the B.Ed Course at the time of filing the application.
The petitioners contend that the 3rd respondent has grievously erred in refusing to issue the certificate. They would be able to apply for the selection to the post of High School Teacher as notified by the PSC only if they are armed with the SET certificate. Exhibit P1 and P2 would unmistakably make it clear that all that is mandated is that students who appear for the test should be in the final year of B.Ed and nothing more. The petitioners clearly satisfy the said requirement, and they would have to be regarded as eligible.
It is in the afore circumstances that this writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue SET certificates to the petitioners forthwith
(ii) Declare that the petitioners are entitled for their SET certificates
In the statement filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioners are candidates who had applied for SET in February, 2020. The notification for SET examination was published on 27/12/2019 and the online registration of candidates started on 20/12/2019. Though the examination was scheduled to be held on 29/03/2020, due to the grave situation prevailing in the State due to the pandemic, it was postponed and could be conducted only on 10/01/2021. As per clause 5.7 of Exhibit P2 prospectus, only the candidates having PG and B.Ed. degree in the concerned subject is allowed to apply for the SET examination. Relaxation is given only to final year students as provided in clause 5.7 of the prospectus. Only candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria as on the date of application are entitled to the said Certificate. First-year students are not eligible to apply or write the examination. Even if they appear, the ineligible candidates cannot claim SET Certificate on the basis of their appearance as it would cause serious prejudice to many other first-year students who did not apply. It was due to the pandemic that the examination was delayed and the petitioners cannot claim any advantage. It is also stated that some of the petitioners have applied and have appeared for the subsequent examination which is conducted on 14/08/2021.
I have heard Sri.A. Rajasimhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Shameena Salahudheen, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government pleader.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced.
There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process commences on the date when applications are invited. Any person eligible on the last date of submission of the application has a right to be considered provided he/she fulfils the requisite qualification.
In U.P. Public Service Commission, U.P., Allahabad and Another v. Alpana [1994 (2) SCC 723], the Apex Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. The Apex Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of applications.
A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India and Others [1993 (2) SCC 429] held as under:
"9. ... It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date."
In Smt. Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Another [1995 Supp (4) SCC 706], the Apex Court held as follows:
"2. ... It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules."
(Emphasis added)
In Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168],it was held:
"10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to he stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement / notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Surat Chandra, 1990 (2) SCC 669 and District Collector and Chairman. Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (3) SCC 655." (Emphasis added)
The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, [1997 (4) SCC 18] had occasion to observe as follows:
"6. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well - established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued / published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself. This proposition is indisputable and in fact was not doubted or disputed in the majority judgment." (Emphasis added)
In State of Gujarat v. Arvind Kumar T. Tiwari [AIR 2012 SC 3281] it was held as under:
"14. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for recruitment for the reason that his appointment would be contrary to the statutory rules, and would therefore, he void in law. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and not mere irregularity. Such a person cannot approach the court for any relief for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (Sec Prit Singh v. S.K. Mangal - 1993 Supp (1) SCC 714 and Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, 2008 (7) SCC 153. (Emphasis added)
In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, I have considered the materials on records.
The petitioners are postgraduates. It is admitted that as on the date of submitting the application for SET, they were pursuing their First-year B.Ed Course. A reading of Exhibit P1 notification and P2 prospectus will leave no manner of doubt that only candidates who had acquired their Master's Degree with the minimum required marks for eligibility to appear for SET and were undergoing the final year course for B.Ed Degree were eligible to appear for the test. Similarly, candidates who have acquired their B.Ed Degree and were undergoing the final year of their Post Graduate Programme were also eligible to appear for the test. Such candidates had to produce the Certificates of their qualifying examinations passed with the minimum required marks within one year from the date of publication of the results of the State Eligibility Test, failing which they shall be treated as disqualified. Admittedly, the petitioners did not have the basic eligibility on the last date when the applications were to be submitted. If the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification on the date of application, they were not entitled to apply for the test. Lacking eligibility for the test cannot be cured at any stage. If a lenient view is taken as requested by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the requirement of eligibility is relaxed, it may result in chaos.
Sri. Rajasimhan had vehemently contended that the notification of examination and the prospectus has not been happily worded and both interpretations are possible. He would also contend that if that be the case, an interpretation, which would further the interest of the petitioners should be taken. I am afraid that I am unable to accept the said submission. Thousands of applicants, similarly placed as the petitioners usually apply for the said test as it is a mandatory qualification for Higher Secondary school teachers. The experts in the field with due regard to the various factors have imposed a condition that only a final year student can apply. This is clearly borne out from the notification as well as the prospectus. The mere fact that the petitioners herein had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, cannot be a reason to treat them on a preferential basis. If they were not entitled to apply, they cannot claim any equity on the ground that they managed to clear the exam. A person who does not possess the requisite qualification cannot even apply for the test for the reason that his/her selection would be contrary to the notification and the prospectus. As held by the Apex court, lacking eligibility at the time of application cannot be cured at any stage and allowing the issuance of the certificate in violation of the stipulation in the prospectus to such a person would result in serious illegality.
Though my sympathies are with the petitioners, in view of the settled principles of law as detailed above, it would not be proper for this Court to grant the prayer sought for.
For the aforementioned reasons, I am not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioners. This writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.