TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J - (1.) THE Department of Education (School), State of Punjab invited applications for 450 posts of Science Masters/Mistresses to be filled up on contract basis. The petitioner, who possessed the requisite qualification of B.Sc and B.Ed applied in response to the advertisement and submitted her application on 10.2.2009. As per the advertisement itself a weightage of additional qualification was to be given to candidates, who possessed M.A./M.Sc/M.Com/M.Ed to the extent of 6 marks, candidates possessing M.Phil 8 marks and Ph.D candidates were to be given additional weightage of 10 marks. The grievance of the petitioner as portrayed in the present petition is that she has qualified the M.A. (English) on 19.8.2010. Respondent-authorities are denying the requisite weightage of 6 marks, even though, she possesses the higher qualification.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having acquired higher qualifications prior to the finalization of the selection process itself, the denial of the weightage for having acquired such higher qualification was arbitrary and inequitable. The matter is well settled that the requisite qualifications possessed by a candidate as regards ascertaining eligibility should be examined with reference to the last date for submission for making applications and not with reference to the date of selection. The same mandate of law would apply equally even to the present factual scenario, whereby weightage in relation to possession of higher qualifications would also have to be seen in respect to the last date for submission of applications. The contention of the learned counsel for grant of weightage in respect to higher qualifications acquired after the last date for submission of applications cannot be accepted. Such a contention accepted would certainly open scope for malpractice and manipulations. A date of selection would be liable to be so fixed and manipulated so as to entertain some applications with respect to candidates, who may have acquired higher qualifications at a later stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan reported as 1993(2) S.C.T 279 has held in the following terms:- "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 be 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. We have,196 therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality,and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. v. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors., (1990) 4 SLR 235 and The District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vidanagaran & Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi,(1990) 4 SLR 237."
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.;