Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Bir Singh And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The State Government of Haryana reserved certain posts of clerks, stenotypists and stenographers in Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ offices for ex-servicemen. On 14-7-1994, the High Court in W.P. No. 11553 of 1993 held that the present respondents—who are dependent children of ex-servicemen and possess only a general Matriculation pass—were eligible for appointment to Class ‘A’ clerical posts even though they were not First Division matriculates. The State appealed. The Supreme Court granted leave and addressed the eligibility issue in the present order.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents’ Arguments

The advertisement dated 7-9-1991 (Annexure R-I) did not distinguish between Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ offices and mentioned only “Matriculation” as the educational qualification for clerical posts.

Because they possess Matriculation, they should be treated on a par with ex-servicemen for the purpose of appointments in Class ‘A’ posts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the Government’s notification prescribing separate educational qualifications for Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ offices. For Class ‘A’ offices, ex-servicemen themselves could be appointed with a basic Matriculation pass, but general candidates had to be First Division matriculates or possess higher qualifying divisions. A subsequent Government circular (21-3-1979) extended the reservation benefit to one dependent child of an ex-serviceman only “provided he fulfils all the conditions of qualifications, age etc.”

The Court emphasised that the relaxation of educational qualification—i.e., mere Matriculation without First Division—was intended exclusively for ex-servicemen themselves, not for their dependants. The dependants, when considered against unfilled ex-servicemen vacancies, must still satisfy the full educational criteria applicable to general candidates for Class ‘A’ offices. Because the respondents lacked First Division in Matriculation, they did not satisfy this mandatory requirement. The advertisement relied upon by the respondents addressed clerks in general and did not override the statutory distinction between Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ offices.

Holding and Implications

Appeals Allowed; Writ Petitions Dismissed.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and ruled that the respondents are not entitled to appointment as clerks in Class ‘A’ offices because they do not meet the requisite educational standard of First Division Matriculation or its equivalents. The immediate consequence is that the respondents cannot claim appointment under the ex-servicemen quota; no broader precedent was articulated beyond the clarification of the qualification requirements for dependants of ex-servicemen.

Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Bir Singh And Another

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. The only question is whether the respondents are eligible to be considered for appointment as clerks in Class ‘A’ offices on the admitted position that they are not matriculates with first division. The High Court in WP No. 11553 of 1993 by judgment dated 14-7-1994 found them to be eligible. Admittedly, the respondents are dependants of ex-servicemen. The Government while reserving the posts for ex-servicemen, have prescribed qualifications for the posts in Class ‘A’ offices, as under:

“Qualifications for the posts of Clerks, Stenotypists and Stenographers in all ‘A’ class offices.

Name of the post Qualifications Clerk 1. Matric Ist Div./Higher Secondary IInd Division/Intermediate IInd Div./Grad-uates or equivalent (For Ex-Servicemen Matric only) 2. Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric Standard. 3. Hindi/English typing at a speed of 25/30 words per minute respectively. Stenotypist 1. Matric Ist Div./Higher Secondary IInd Division/Graduate or equivalent (For Ex-Servicemen Matric only) 2. Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric standard. 3. English shorthand at 80 w.p.m and transcription thereof at 11 w.p.m 4. Hindi shorthand at 64 w.p.m and transcription thereof at 11 w.p.m Stenographer 1. Matric Ist Div./Higher Secondary IInd Div./Intermediate IInd Div./Graduate or equivalent (For Ex-Servicemen Matric only) 2. Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric Standard. 3. English shorthand at 100 w.p.m and transcription thereof at 20 w.p.m 4. Hindi shorthand at 80 w.p.m and transcription thereof at 15 w.p.m”

For Class ‘B’ offices, it was prescribed thus:

“Qualification for the post of Clerks, Stenotypists and Stenographers in all offices other than ‘A’ class offices:

Name of post Qualifications 1. Clerk 1. Matric/Higher Secondary or equivalent. 2. Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric Standard. 3. Hindi or English typing at a speed of 25/30 w.p.m respectively. 2. Stenotypist 1. Matric/Higher Secondary or equivalent. 2. Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric Standard. 3. Hindi shorthand at 64 w.p.m and transcription thereof at 11 w.p.m OR English shorthand at 80 w.p.m and transcription thereof at 15 w.p.m 3. Stenographer 1. Hindi: Higher Secondary or equivalent. 2. Knowledge of Hindi up to Matric Standard. 3. Hindi shorthand at 80 w.p.m and transcription thereof at 15 w.p.m OR English shorthand at 100 w.p.m and transcription thereof at 20 w.p.m”

3. In the year 1979 while giving benefit of reservation to the children of ex-servicemen, by proceedings dated 21-3-1979, it was stated thus:

“It has been observed that due to non-availability of suitable candidates for the reserved quota, the recruitment of ex-servicemen to the civil posts is not being made to the desired extent. In view of this, it has been decided that the dependent sons and daughters of ex-servicemen, who fulfil all the conditions of qualifications, age etc. prescribed for various posts, should also be considered on merits for the posts reserved for the ex-servicemen to the extent of non-availability of suitable ex-servicemen. This entitlement would be available to one dependent child only.”

(emphasis supplied)

4. A reading of these conditions would clearly indicate that if the ex-servicemen are considered for appointment in ‘A’ class offices, they may be mere matriculates only. The qualification of First Division in Higher Secondary or Second Division in Intermediate is necessary for general candidates. With regard to the appointments in ‘B’ class offices this condition was not incorporated. For children of ex-servicemen, they are required to fulfil all the conditions of qualifications prescribed for the posts and be considered on merits for appointment to the unfilled posts reserved for ex-servicemen.

5. Respondents contend that since the advertisement, Annexure R-I, dated 7-9-1991, does not prescribe any distinction between ‘A’ class and ‘B’ class offices and had only mentioned about Matriculation as the respondents had secured Matriculation, they are eligible on a par with the ex-servicemen for appointment in ‘A’ class posts. We find no force as the advertisement dealt with clerks in general; it did not say about clerk in ‘A’ class office. It has already been seen that in case ex-serviceman is not available and there exists vacancy reserved for ex-serviceman, the dependent i.e son or daughter of ex-servicemen is eligible for consideration to appointment but subject to the candidate's possessing qualifications prescribed for the posts. One of the conditions is that in case of the dependent, he shall also be required to be a Matriculate with First Division or Intermediate with Second Division. Such candidate alone is eligible for appointment in ‘A’ class office. The benefit of mere Matriculation is available to the ex-servicemen only. Dependant's son or daughter cannot be considered to be an ex-serviceman. The benefit of giving reservation to the dependants is only to see that the posts reserved for ex-servicemen may not be allowed to be lapsed for non-availability of ex-servicemen.

6. Considered from this perspective, we are of the view that the respondents are not entitled for appointment in ‘A’ class offices since they do not have First Division in Matriculation nor that they are ex-servicemen.

7. The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs. The writ petitions filed in the High Court stand dismissed.

Civil Appeals Nos. 4474-75 of 1995, decided on March 27, 1995

Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Bir Singh And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents’ Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Bir Singh And Another

Comments