1. The petitioner responded to advertisement notification No. PSE/EXM-09/46 dated 30.12.2008 issued by the respondents 2 and 3, inviting applica tions from eligible candidates for 398 vacancies in the pay scale of 7500-12000, in various services including Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Services. The examination in terms of SRO 387 dated 01.12.2008 read with SRO 397 dated 15.12.2008 was to con sist of two stages: i) "Combined Competitive (Prelimi nary) Examination (Objective Type) for selection of candidates for the main examinations and ii) Combined Competitive (Main) Ex amination (Written and interview) for selection of candidates for various services and posts indicated." The advertisement notification laid down the conditions of eligibility as under:- 5(1) "A candidate a. Must be permanent resident of the J&K State; and b. Must hold a Bachelors Degree in any subject from a recognized Uni versity in India or from a foreign Uni versity declared by Government in consultation with the Commission to be equivalent to a degree of a recog nized India University. Provided that candidates who have appeared in any examination for such degree from any such Univer sity the passing of which would ren der them eligible to appear in the examination but the results of their examination has not been declared, shall be allowed to appear in the pre liminary examination. All such can didates who are declared qualified by the Commission for taking the Combined Competitive (Main) Exami nation will be required to produce proof of passing the requisite exami nation with their application for the Main Examination failing which such candidates shall not be admitted to the Main Examination." The last date of filing of application forms was extended to 20th March 2009. The petitioner admittedly had not a Bachelors degree to his credit on 20th March 2009 i.e. the last date for filing of applications for the advertised post. The petitioner appeared in BA final year examination through Delhi University in April 2009, the results were declared on 8th August 2009, the application for the advertised post obviously was filed his application.
The petitioner admittedly had not a Bachelors degree to his credit on 20th March 2009 i.e. the last date for filing of applications for the advertised post. The petitioner appeared in BA final year examination through Delhi University in April 2009, the results were declared on 8th August 2009, the application for the advertised post obviously was filed his application. In terms of Proviso to part (b) of the notice dealing with eligi bility criteria, where under even a can didate, who did not hold a Bachelor's degree from a recognized University, but had appeared in any examination for his degree and was awaiting results, however, the petitioner provisionally admitted to Combined Competitive Ser vices (Preliminary) Examination 2009, was permitted by the respondents to appear in the preliminary examination held on 23rd and 24th May, 2009 and was declared successful where after the petitioner was again provisionally ad mitted to Combined Competent Ser vices (Main Examination) 2009, held in March, April 2010 and permitted to sit in the examination. 2. The respondents on the basis of petitioner's performance in the main examination, calling for interview on 02.11.2010 at 9:30 A.M. The respon dents thereafter vide No. PSC/EXAM/KAS/2009, dated 03.12.2010, informed petitioner that he had not appeared in the degree examination, prior to 20th March, 2009, i.e. cut off date for obtain ing the degree or appearing for the de gree examination and failed to submit the proof of having appeared in the de gree examination prior to 20th March, 2009, though at the time of interview he volunteered to submit the proof, asked the petitioner to submit the proof of having appeared in the degree ex amination prior to 20th March, 2009 within three days i.e. up to 7th Decem ber, 2010, failing which his candidature can be deemed to have revoked even shown "ab-initio" without any further notice. The petitioner in his reply to the communication No. PSC/EXAM/KAS/2009 Dated 03.12.2010, insisting that the fixation of examination sched ule degree examination is never within control of candidate, stated that he was to be given same treatment as was given to the candidate, who had ap peared for the degree examination prior to 20th March, 2009 and yet to be de clared successful by his/her candida ture.
The petitioner submitted that the treatment given to the petitioner dif ferent from one candidate, who ap peared fortunately to have examined schedule/fixed by the University before 20th March, 2009 would offend Article 14 Constitution of India. The petitioner highlighted his academic achieve ments, appeared to the respondents not to reject his candidature on a techni cal ground. The petitioner also com plained that as he was not informed well in time regarding his ineligibility to participate in the selection process. The petitioner lost opportunity to pre pare for Indian Administrative Service and appear in the preliminary exami nation for the Service held in May, 2010. The petitioner's reply to the com munication No. PSC/EXAM/KAS/2009 Dated 03.12.2010, having not found favour with the respondents, the peti tioner has filed instant writ petition assailing the aforesaid communication and also questioning the varies of Pro viso 1 Rule 5 of SRO 387 of 2008 dated 01.12.2008 on the grounds that once Proviso 1 Rule 5 of SRO 387 of 2008 dated 01.12.2008, made room for par ticipation of candidates, who had yet to acquire Bachelor's degree on the date the advertisement notification was issued and even on the last date of filing of applications. There was no rea son to reject the candidature of the pe titioner, who though not having Bachelor's degree on the last date of filing of the application, did acquire it after the main examination was held but before he was called for interview. It is insisted that Proviso 1 Rule 5 of SRO 387 of 2008 dated 01.12.2008, when given a purposive interpretation, makes the petitioner eligible for par ticipation in the selection process for the advertised posts. It is pointed out that as the fixation of examination schedule is not within competence of. the candidate and dependence of the decision to be taken by the University Authorities. The petitioner cannot be exposed to hostile discrimination only because the University Authorities decided to conduct the examination a few weeks after the last date of filing of the applications.
It is pointed out that as the fixation of examination schedule is not within competence of. the candidate and dependence of the decision to be taken by the University Authorities. The petitioner cannot be exposed to hostile discrimination only because the University Authorities decided to conduct the examination a few weeks after the last date of filing of the applications. It is urged that in case Proviso 1 Rule 5 SRO 387 of 2008 dated 01.12.2008, is held to entitle/make eli gible only the candidates, who appeared in Bachelor's degree examination be fore the date of filing of applications i.e. 20th March, 2009 and excludes all such candidates who appeared in the said examination thereafter, but acquired Bachelors degree before the selection process was taken to its logical end, the Proviso would amount to unreason able classification and then inflict with the mandate of Article 14 Constitution of India. It is further pleaded that the respondents after having entertained the application submitted by the peti tioner, allowed the petitioner to appear in preliminary examination and there after main examination and uncalled the petitioner for interview cannot turn around and reject the petitioner on the ground of his having eligible on the date of filing of the applications on the prin ciple of promissory estoppels. The peti tioner also assails the impugned order on the ground of fairness and pleads the order is unfair, unjust and inflict with principle of equity and good conscious and fair play. The petitioner pleads that as there was no stipulation in terms of advertisement notification, obligating the candidate to prove his having appeared in the degree examination prior to last date of filing of the application. The petitioner was neither to be asked to submit proof in support of his having appeared in Bachelor's degree exami nation prior to 20th March, 2009, nor could petitioner be penalized for his failure to submit such proof. 3. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that Proviso 1 Rule 5 J&K Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 (SRO 387 of 2008 dated 01.12.2008) having been made in ex ercise of power under Article 309 Con stitution of India, corresponding to Sec tion 1 to 4 of the Constitution of J&K. It can be struck down only on such ground as may invalidate legislation and not merely because the rule is considered as unreasonable or harsh.
It is pointed out that there is strong presumption in favour of Constitutionality of legislation and the petitioner is under heavy bur den to establish that impugned rules is violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. The respondents insist that as it is permissible for the State to prescribe conditions of eligibility for recruitment to any service under it and the rule cannot be called in question on the ground that it creates two classes, unmindful of the fact that dis crimination is "in itself essence of equality". The respondents pointed out that the petitioner was only provision ally permitted to appear in main ex amination on his claiming and there was nothing wrong in requiring the petitioner to submit proof of his eligi bility to participate in the selection pro cess and once the petitioner fail to sub mit the proof, his candidature was to be deemed to stand revoked from the date his initial participation in the se lection process. 4. I have gone through the plead ings and heard learned counsel for par ties. 5. Challenge to Proviso 1 Rule 5 of SRO 387 on the ground of unreason able classification must fail for the fol lowing reasons :- I) It is no more res-integra that the State and its functionaries have com plete freedom to lay down eligibility criteria for appointment to any office under the State. The eligibility crite ria where ever prescribed under the rules governing selection for any of fice under the State or Government em ployment, necessarily divides the as pirants for such post or the employ ment into two groups - one satisfying the eligibility criteria and another group not satisfying such criteria. The eligibility criteria works like a divid ing line between two groups of the as pirants. To illustrate the eligibility cri teria for a post under the State or Gov ernment employment may declare such of the candidates having requi site qualification eligible for posts or Government employment who are less than X years of age on the first day of January in which the advertisement notice is issued. The candidates hav ing the requisite qualification, train ing and expertise but more than X years of age on the 1st January of the aforesaid year, even by one week or one day would not be eligible for the advertised post.
The candidates hav ing the requisite qualification, train ing and expertise but more than X years of age on the 1st January of the aforesaid year, even by one week or one day would not be eligible for the advertised post. Such candidates cannot be heard saying that they have been exposed to a discriminatory treatment and that eligibility criteria laid down amounted to unreasonable classification. The reason being that eligibility criteria for a post under State or Government employment whenever laid down as already pointed out is bound to divide the as pirants for such post or employment into two groups. Same is true about criteria as regards the academic or technical qualification. Whenever date of acquisition of academic or techni cal qualification prescribed for post or Government employment is prescribed under rules the aspirants for post or Government employment who acquire such qualification say a week or a day after prescribed date would be ineli gible for the advertised post. Even where the date of acquisition of aca demic or technical qualification is ad vanced/extended still such criteria would divide the aspirants into two groups, one having acquired the pre scribed qualification on the cut of date and another group acquiring such qualification a day or a week after the said date. It needs to be pointed out that when the prescribed criteria as regards age or academic or technical qualification divides the aspirants into two groups, the groups constitute two different classes one satisfying the eligibility criteria on the date and an other lacking eligibility on such date. There is thus intelligible differentia between the two classes. The object of laying down date of acquisition of eligibility criteria is to consider the candidates who satisfy the eligibility criteria on the fixed date and exclude others and classification of the candi dates into two classes on the basis of date of acquisition of eligibility has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In the present case as per adver tisement notification (SRO-387 of 01.12.2008) a candidate in order to be eligible to appear in Combined Competitive Examination must hold a Bachelor degree on the date he re sponds to the advertisement notice.
In the present case as per adver tisement notification (SRO-387 of 01.12.2008) a candidate in order to be eligible to appear in Combined Competitive Examination must hold a Bachelor degree on the date he re sponds to the advertisement notice. In terms of Proviso to Rule 5 (1) of SRO 387 of 2008, even the candidates who appeared in the Bachelors degree ex amination on the date they respond to the advertisement notice but their re sults are yet to be declared and resultantly do not have a Bachelors degree to their credit, are allowed to appear in "Preliminary Examination" subject to the rider that they shall not be eligible to appear in the "Main Ex amination" unless their Bachelors de gree result has been declared by the time they submit their application for "Main Examination". In other words candidates who have appeared in Bachelors degree examination on the date they submit their application for Preliminary Examination can appear in Main Examination only if they have acquired the Bachelors degree before they file their application for the main examination. It is a fact of common knowledge that there is a long inter val between preliminary and main ex amination in Combined Civil Services, Examination. A good number of can didates respond to the Preliminary Examination which is intended to short list the candidates for the Main Examination. The Selection Authority requires quite some time to evaluate the performance of the candidates who appear in Preliminary Examination. In the circumstances it would be harsh to exclude all the candidates who have already appeared in Bachelors degree examination but are awaiting results, intend to appear in preliminary exami nation, from participating in the Se lection Process at the threshold/Pre liminary Examination level. The excep tion is carved out to allow such candi dates, who though not eligible at the time of submitting applications for Pre liminary Examinations, are expected to acquire eligibility before the Main Examination, to participate in the ex amination. The object is to throw the net wider and get the best talent from the marketplace, without compromis ing on the date of acquisition of the eligibility. In the present case, the petitioner appeared in Bachelors degree exami nation in April 2009. The last date for filing Application Forms was 20th March 2009.
The object is to throw the net wider and get the best talent from the marketplace, without compromis ing on the date of acquisition of the eligibility. In the present case, the petitioner appeared in Bachelors degree exami nation in April 2009. The last date for filing Application Forms was 20th March 2009. The petitioner obviously had not appeared in Bachelors degree examination on the date he filed the application for preliminary examina tion. The petitioner thus was not eli gible even in terms of exception carved out under Rule 5(1) to participate in the selection process on the date of filing of application for Preliminary Examination. The respondents none theless permitted the petitioner to ap pear in Preliminary Examination. The Preliminary Examination was held on 23rd an 24th May 2009 and the peti tioner was declared successful. The respondents permitted the petitioner to provisionally sit in the Main Exami nation, though the petitioner had not acquired the eligibility i.e. Bachelors degree on the date he filed applica tion to sit in the "Main Examination". The respondents having regard to the petitioner's performance in the main examination called him for vivo-voce on 2nd November 2010 at 9.30 am., however before the petitioner could appear in vivo-voce the respondents realised that the petitioner had not appeared in Bachelors degree on 20th March 2009 i.e. the last date for ob taining the degree and submitted no proof of his having acquired Bachelors degree on the date he submitted ap plication for Main Examination, he was not to be permitted to appear in vivo-voce unless he produced a proof of his having acquired Bachelors de gree on the date he filed application for Main Examination. The respon dents as pointed out gave opportunity to the petitioner to submit such proof within three days. The petitioner in stead of submitting requisite proof insisted that as declaration of results was not within the control of a candi date, the petitioner was not to be ex cluded on the ground of his not hav ing acquired the Bachelors degree on the prescribed date. The petitioner obviously did not satisfy the pre scribed criteria on the date prescribed under rules and did not belong to the class of candidates who had the req uisite eligibility on the said date.
The petitioner obviously did not satisfy the pre scribed criteria on the date prescribed under rules and did not belong to the class of candidates who had the req uisite eligibility on the said date. The petitioner and the candidates like the petitioner who did not possess the eligibility on the prescribed date and the candidates who had such eligibil ity belong to two different classes and are to be treated unequally. The equal ity and not inequality between the two different classes shall offend Article 14 Constitution of India. In the circum stances the petitioner cannot be heard saying that he has been exposed to any discriminatory treatment or treated unequally. An aspirant for a post under State or Government employment cannot lay a claim to his appointment though in eligible and not satisfying the eligibil ity criteria only on the ground that he was allowed to participate in selec tion process on the erroneous belief that he satisfied such criteria or pro visionally so allowed expecting him to acquire the eligibility before the selec tion process crosses the threshold stage. In a case like one in hand, the participation of the candidate is ab-initio in violation of the eligibility cri teria and no benefit can flow out of such participation in favour of the pe titioner. II) The petitioner has participated in the selection process, fully aware of the rules regulating such participation. The petitioner was aware that he was to respond to the advertisement notice only if he had appeared in Bachelor's degree examination on the date he sub mitted application for Preliminary Ex amination and that for participation in second round of the selection pro cess i. e. the Main Examination, he was to acquire Bachelors degree before submitting the application form for the Main Examination. The petitioner knew well that he had not appeared in the Bachelors degree Examination before submitting application for Pre liminary Examination and was thus not eligible to participate in the selec tion process and did not acquire Bach elors degree before filing application for "Main Examination". The petitioner after having applied under the SRO 387 of 2008 cannot turn around to question its validity and insist that the Provision was discriminatory in char acter. 6. For the reasons discussed the writ petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.