LAKSHMANAN, C. J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. M. R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Govind Mathur for respondent No. 4.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 23rd March 1995 appointing respondent No. 3 and 4 as Carpenters in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur and Jodhpur. The petitioner is one of the applicant for the said post. The eligibility for the post was that an incumbent must either possess III Certificate in Carpenter Trade alongwith two years' experience of a reputed establishment/shop or an incumbent must have passed examination of Secondary or its equivalent examination with five years experience of a Government Office or establishment. According to the petitioner, he was fully eligible for the post in question, since he was a graduate and was possessing experience of a Carpenter of a reputed establishment. The petitioner applied for the same and he was called for interview vide communication dated 13. 02. 1995 and was directed to appear before the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court for interview under Anx. 2. The petitioner appeared on 6th March 1995 and, thereafter, he was called upon for an oral test on 7. 03. 1995. According to the petitioner, he answered all the questions very well and thus, in view of his performance and in view of his services which he has rendered since August 1993, he was hopeful of being selected and appointed as Carpenter but his hopes were belied when he came to know that vide order dated 23rd March 1995 the respondent No. 3 and 4 have been appointed as Carpenter in the regular pay scale of Rs. 950-1680 under Anx. 3. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. Mr. M. R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appointment is perse illegal and that the respondents have not passed any examination which is equivalent to the Secondary Examination and that the 4th respondent Bilal Ahmd is only a matriculate and does not possess the Certificate III in Carpenter Trade. It is also submitted that as per the advertisement the application form was required to be accompanied by postal order of Rs. 20/- and this mandatory requirement has not also been complied with and the rules have been relaxed in so far as payment of the sum of Rs. 20/- each, is concerned. It is also submitted by Mr. Singhvi that the qualifications which were prescribed and which were mentioned in the advertisement cannot at all be relaxed and there was no provision for relaxation of the qualifications and that being so, the respondents have no authority, power or jurisdiction to relax the qualifications and, therefore, the appointment made while purporting to relax the qualifications, is wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. Singhvi, in support of his contention has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India and others (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the authorities concerned are bound to conform to the standards or norms laid down in the notice inviting tenders which require that only a person running a registered IInd Class hotel or restaurant and having atleast 5 years' experience as such should be eligible to submit a tender. Citing the above decision, there was a submission that the action of the first respondent herein, accepting the application by relaxing the rule and without following the prescribed conditions of eligibility, is perse illegal and discriminatory. He has also cited (District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram vs. Social Welfare Residential School, Society, Vizianagaram and another's case which says that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made disregarding the same, qualification cannot be relaxed and that it amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. The 3rd decision cited by Mr. M. R. Singhvi is (West Bengal Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and others) (3), This decision was cited by him for the proposition that the adherence to the instructions issued to bidders cannot be given a go-bye by branding it as a pedantic approach otherwise it will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to the Rule of Law and our Constitutional values. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Singhvi submitted that the respondents are duty bound to conform to the standards of norms laid down in paragraph 1 and the norms prescribed in the advertisement Anx. 1, and the relaxation of the educational qualification and other conditions in so far as respondents No. 3 and 4 are concerned are clearly discriminatory since it excluded persons like the petitioner or similarly situated from being selected as Carpenters in the services of the Rajasthan High Court.
(3.) PER contra, it is submitted by Mr. Sangeet Lodha and Mr. Govind Mathur that the Chief Justice of this Court, by invoking his jurisdiction under Rule 28 which deals with qualification for appointment under the Rajasthan High Court Conditions of Service of Staff Rules, 1953 and by also invoking rule 17 of the same Rules, can relax the provisions of any of these Rules. Rule 2b and Rule 17 which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in this case, run as follows:- "2b. Qualification for appointment:- The qualifications required for appointment to the various categories of posts by departmental promotion or otherwise shall be such as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, by general or special order, specify. 17. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice may relax the Provisions of any of these rules in any particular case provided that the case shall not be dealt with in a manner less favourable than that provided in the rules. " Rule 2b specifically authorses the Chief Justice of the High Court to prescribe the qualifications required for appointment to the various categories of posts by departmental promotion or otherwise from time to time by general or special order and specify the same accordingly. Rule 17 of the Rules authorises the Chief Justice to relax the Provisions of any of these rules in any particular case provided that the case shall not be dealt with in a manner less favourable than that provided in the rules. As already noticed, the judgment cited by Mr. Singhvi and reported in AIR 1990 (3) SCC. 655 (supra) has clearly stated that unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable, the same cannot be relaxed. As already seen, rule 2b and Rule 17 clearly authorises the Chief Justice to prescribe the qualification prescribed for appointment to any post and also relax the provisions of any of the Rules in any particular case depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. ;