Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohd. Iqbal Sheikh Amir, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Buldhana (respondent no.2), which rejected his objection and held that respondent no.5, Abdul Halim Abdul Majeed, was entitled to be selected as Shikshan Sevak over the petitioner. The dispute arose from an advertisement issued on 15.08.2009 by the District Selection Committee (respondent no.1) and respondent no.2 for selecting Shikshan Sevak. The advertisement expressly stipulated that selection would be based on marks secured in the written examination at B.Ed. The petitioner had secured 364 marks out of 700 in the written examination, while respondent no.5 had secured 421 marks out of 800. The additional 100 marks in respondent no.5's marksheet were for two practical papers (Annual Lesson), in which he scored 44 and 43 marks out of 50 each. The petitioner contended that only written examination marks should be considered, and if the practical marks were excluded, respondent no.5's written marks would be 334 out of 700, which is less than the petitioner's 364 marks. The court agreed with the petitioner, holding that the selection committee had erred by including the practical examination marks, as the advertisement clearly limited consideration to written examination marks. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider the selection in accordance with the advertisement. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection Process - Interpretation of Advertisement - Selection of Shikshan Sevak - The advertisement expressly stipulated that selection shall be on the basis of marks secured in written examination at B.Ed. - The respondent no.5's marksheet included 100 marks for practical papers (Annual Lesson) which were not part of written examination - The court held that the selection committee erred in considering total marks including practical component, as the advertisement only permitted consideration of written examination marks - The impugned order was quashed and set aside (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection of Shikshan Sevak based on B.Ed. marks including practical examination (Annual Lesson) is valid when the advertisement specified selection on the basis of marks secured in written examination only.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.04.2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the selection in accordance with the advertisement and the observations made in the judgment. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Selection criteria must be strictly as per advertisement
- marks of written examination only to be considered
- practical examination marks cannot be included if advertisement specifies written examination marks only
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 118
Writ Petition No. 3658/2013
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Z.A. Haq
S.Z. Sonbhadre for Petitioner, K.S. Joshi for Respondent No.1, I.L. Bodade for Respondent No.2, D.M. Kale for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, J.J. Chandurkar for Respondent No.5
District Selection Committee through its Chairman, Collector, Buldhana and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Education Officer (Primary) rejecting the petitioner's objection and holding that respondent no.5 was entitled to be selected as Shikshan Sevak over the petitioner.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order dated 11.04.2012 and a direction to consider his candidature for selection as Shikshan Sevak.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's objection that respondent no.5's marks included practical examination marks (Annual Lesson) which were not part of the written examination as per the advertisement was rejected by the selection committee.
Previous Decisions
The High Court had earlier issued directions in its order dated 27.02.2012 in Writ Petition No. 234/2010, which led to the impugned order.
Issues
Whether the selection committee erred in considering the total marks of respondent no.5 including practical examination marks when the advertisement specified selection on the basis of written examination marks only.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that his marksheet showed 364 marks out of 700 for written examination only, while respondent no.5's marksheet showed total marks out of 800 including 100 marks for practical papers (Annual Lesson). He contended that if practical marks were excluded, respondent no.5's written marks would be 334 out of 700, which is less than the petitioner's marks.
Ratio Decidendi
The selection for the post of Shikshan Sevak must be strictly in accordance with the terms of the advertisement. Since the advertisement expressly stipulated that selection shall be on the basis of marks secured in the written examination at B.Ed., the selection committee cannot consider marks obtained in practical examinations (Annual Lesson) for the purpose of comparison. The inclusion of practical marks vitiates the selection process.
Judgment Excerpts
The advertisement expressly stipulates that selection shall be on the basis of marks secured in written examination at B.Ed.
The marksheet of respondent no.5 gives him total marks out of 800. The additional 100 marks are on account of two papers which consists of Annual Lesson.
If the marks obtained by respondent no.5 in the Annual Lesson are excluded, his marks in written examination would be 334 out of 700, which is less than the petitioner's 364 marks.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3658/2013 challenging the order dated 11.04.2012 passed by respondent no.2. The High Court had earlier issued directions in Writ Petition No. 234/2010 on 27.02.2012, which led to the impugned order. The matter was heard by consent and disposed of on 31.01.2014.
