High Courts

Letters Patent Appeal

— Scope of interference in — Argument made in Letters Patent Appeal but not in the writ petition — Interference on the basis of — Impermissibility — Service matters — Writ petition challenging selection by Selection Board and not challenging the rules — Single Judge upholding the selection — Argument raised in LPA that the relevant service rules were discriminatory — In such circumstances, held, Division Bench could not have struck down or read down the rules — The LPA could have proceeded only on the basis of the writ petition and the impugned judgment of the Single Judge, (2006) 6 SCC 467-A

Service Law

Recruitment process

— Selection — Judicial review — Weightage to higher qualification — Judicial interference directing to give, dehors the rules — Impermissibility — Rules prescribing degree or diploma in Electric/Electronic Engineering as an essential qualification for appointment as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Grade II — Rules not making any distinction between degree-holders and diploma-holders at the stage of recruitment, but providing for greater weightage to degree-holders in the post-recruitment period in the form of higher starting pay and lesser length of service requirement for eligibility to promotion — Writ petitioners challenging the selection but not the rules — In such circumstances, held, High Court erred in interfering with the selection process on the basis of a criterion not provided in the rules and directing the Selection Board to reframe the criterion of the marks (at the relevant time 80% marks) reserved for eligibility qualification by giving adequate weightage to the higher qualification of degree and to reassess the candidates accordingly — Moreover, the view taken by the High Court that degree-holders had been equated with diploma-holders was erroneous as the rules maintained sufficient inbuilt balance between the said two categories, (2006) 6 SCC 467-B