1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.170­171 OF 201    8

(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.     24387­88/2013    )

ASHISH KUMAR                …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.   …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment of

High   Court   of   judicature   at   Allahabad   (Lucknow   Bench),

Lucknow, dated 04.10.2010 dismissing the Special Appeal No.446

of 2006 of the appellant as well as judgment dated 20.12.2012

dismissing   the   review   application   filed   by   the   appellant.

Parties shall be referred to as referred in the appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are:

The   appellant   belongs   to   other   backward   caste   who   has

passed graduation (B.A.) with Psychology and has also done

2

post­graduation   in   Psychology   from   Kanpur   University.

Appellant has also obtained master degree in Human Resource

Management and Industrial Relations from Lucknow University in

the year 1997. An advertisement dated 30.08.2001 was issued by

the   Director,   Social   Welfare   Department,   U.P.,   advertising

various posts under Director, Social Welfare Department and

other   department   of   State.   Advertisement   also   contained

recruitment for post of Psychologist (03 posts). The appellant

submitted the application for the post of ‘Psychologist’. The

appellant was issued admit card for appearing in the written

examination. The appellant appeared in the written examination

and was declared successful and included in the merit list. A

letter dated 02.05.2003 was issued to the appellant asking the

appellant   to   appear   along   with   original   certificates   for

verification of documents. The appellant appeared along with

all the documents on 12.05.2003. When appellant appeared on

12

th

  May,  he  was   informed  that  he  is   not  eligible  and  his

appointment for the post of ‘Psychologist’ cannot be made. The

appellant   submitted   a   representation   on   02.06.2003   to   the

respondent. The appellant having not been given appointment;

hence,   he   filed   a   writ   petition   praying   for   the   following

relief:

“ PRAYER

3

(I) issue a writ order or  direction  

including a  writ   in   the   nature  

of mandamus   commanding   the  

opposite parties to appoint  the  

petitioner on the post  of  

Psychologist for which  the  

petitioner is fully  eligible   and  

qualified as per   advertisement  

published  for   direct   recruitment  

in SAMOOH 'GA'.

(II) Issue a writ order or  direction  

including a  writ   in   the   nature  

of mandamus   commanding   the  

opposite not to appoint any  other

candidature on the  post   of  

Psychologist for  which   the  

petitioner is  fully eligible.

(III)Issue a writ order or  direction  

including a  writ   in   the   nature  

of mandamus   commanding   the  

opposite parties not to  harass  

and victimize the petitioner   in  

any manner whatsoever.

(IV)Issue such other order/orders as may

deem just and proper by this Hon'ble

Court   in   the   Circumstances   of   the

case.

(V) Award the cost of petition  in   favour

of the petitioner.”

3. In the writ petition, learned single Judge directed for

filing a counter affidavit and also bringing on record the

copy   of   the   Order   passed   on   the   representation   of   the

appellant   dated   02.06.2003.   The   appellant   also   filed   a

Contempt Application No.182 of 2004 in which Director, Social

Welfare   was   directed   to   appear   in   person.   An   Order   dated

4

19.04.2004   was   passed   by   the   respondent   rejecting   the

representation   of   the   appellant.   The   appellant   prayed   for

amendment of the writ petition, praying for quashing the order

dated 19.04.2004 which prayer was allowed to be added. Learned

single Judge by its judgment dated 18.05.2006 dismissed the

writ petition. Learned single Judge accepted the case taken up

by the respondent in the counter affidavit that appellant is

not qualified for the post since he does not have training

qualification i.e. L.T./B.T.B.Ed. The appellant filed special

appeal   which   too   was   dismissed.   Review   application   filed

thereafter was also rejected.

4. We heard Shri Mukesh K. Giri, learned counsel for the

appellant   and   Shri   Ajay   Kumar   Mishra,   Additional   Advocate

General, appearing for the State of U.P.

5.Learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   the

appellant being graduate and post­graduate in ‘Psychology’ was

fully eligible for the post of ‘Psychologist’. It is submitted

that   the   advertisement   has   been   wrongly   read   by   the   High

Court. Graduate in Psychology was qualified for the post and

advertisement   does   not   prescribe   qualification   as   graduate

with Psychology and L.T./B.T. B.Ed. He further submits that

although   the   post   of   Psychologist   in   the   Social   Welfare

Department was declared as dead cadre by the Government Order

5

dated   09.05.2008   but   said   posts   were   again   revised   by   the

subsequent Government Order dated 17.08.2010. He submits that

post of Psychologist is not a teaching post; hence, it was not

necessary to have training qualification. Learned counsel has

also relied on the rules namely Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur

Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991, according to which, he

submits that for Psychologist, training qualification is not

essential qualification and as per rule minimum qualification

is M.A. in Psychology. B.Ed. is only preferable qualification.

He submits that the essential work of the Psychologist was to

provide   educational   counseling   to   the   students   and   other

duties and was not essentially a teaching post. He submits

that   the   advertisement   mentioned,   in   subject   of   Psychology

Graduate or L.T./B.T. B.Ed.

6.   Shri   Ajay   Kumar   Mishra,   Additional   Advocate   General,

refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant

contends that respondents have rightly held the appellant not

qualified.   He   submits   that   according   to   advertisement

essential   qualification   is   graduate   in   Psychology   with

L.T./B.T.B.Ed. He submits that Janjatiya Vikas Shikshan Aur

Kermchariverg Sewa Niyamawali, 1991, hereinafter referred to

as 1991 Rules governed the fields.  It is, however, submitted

that   although   appellant   was   called   to   appear   in   written

6

examination and interview but on discovering that he is not

eligible as per the requirement of the recruitment rule, the

respondent corrected the mistake on their part by not going

any further with the appointment of the appellant by rejecting

his candidature.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel

for the parties and perused the record.

8. The parties are at variance with regard to correct import

of the advertisement. The appellant’s case was that as per the

advertisement   the   graduation   in   Psychology   was   the   minimum

qualification   and   qualification   of   L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   were

independent qualification on fulfilling of which candidate was

qualified.   Advertisement   does   not   require   graduate   with

Psychology with L.T./B.T. B.Ed. to make candidate eligible.

Whereas the respondent’s case is that the candidate shall be

qualified only when he is both graduate with Psychology and

possesses L.T./B.T. B.Ed. The case of the respondent is that

although the appellant was issued admit card and called to

appear in the written and in interview but his appointment was

not   issued   since   it   was   realized   that   he   does   not   have

L.T./B.T. B.Ed. qualification.   In paragraph 4(Xiii) of the

counter affidavit it has been reiterated that even if there is

some ambiguity in the advertisement, the appointment has to be

7

made as per the recruitment rules which in this case is 1991

Rules.   It   is   useful   to   extract   following   as   stated   in

paragraph 4(Xiii) of the counter affidavit:

“4.(Xiii)   That   is   further   respectfully

submitted that arguendo, even if it is conceded

that   there   was   some   ambiguity   in   the

advertisement, the petitioner herein cannot be

allowed to misinterpret the same in his favour

as it is trite that the appointment has to be

made in accordance with the recruitment rules

which   in   this   case   is   the   Janjatiya   Vikas

Sikchan   Aur   Kermchariverg   Sewa   Niyamawali,

1991. It is also humbly submitted that if there

was any ambiguity in the requirements mentioned

in   the   advertisement,   it   has   to   be   read   in

consonance with the recruitment rules.

......... .......... .........

Therefore,   keeping   the   abovesaid   settled

position   of   law   in   mind,   it   is   most

respectfully submitted by the respondent herein

that   though   the   petitioner   herein   was

inadvertently   issued   the   admit   card   for

appearing in the written examination as well as

called   for   the   interview,   the   respondent

authorities, on discovering that the petitioner

herein was not eligible as per the requirements

of the recruitment rules as he did not possess

the   requisite   L.T./B.T./B.Ed   as   prescribed,

rightly corrected the mistake on their part by

not going any further with the appointment of

the   petitioner   herein   and   rejected   his

candidature   as   such   an   appointment   would   be

void.”

9.   Learned   single   Judge   took   the   view   that   the   appellant

should have possessed the qualification of trained graduate

and   since   he   does   not   possess   the   said   qualification,   his

claim has rightly been rejected. It is useful to quote the

8

last portion of the judgment:

”...Accordingly   the   petitioner   should   have

possessed the qualification of trained graduate

and   since   he   does   not   possess   the   said

qualification,   which   is   eligible   for   on   the

post of L.T.grade teacher, I am of the view

that the claim for appointment on the post of

L.T. grade teacher, has rightly rejected.

The petition is dismissed. No order as to

cost.”

10.   The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   made   following

observations: 

”...The educational qualification for the post

in   question   is   that   the   candidate   must   be

graduate with the subject of Psychology along

with   other   essential   qualifications   of   being

L.T./B.T./B.Ed. The condition of being B.Ed or

being possessed L.T./B.T. certificates or B.Ed.

degree is an essential qualification along with

the   condition   of   being   graduate   with   the

subject   Psychology.   If   a   candidate   is   not

possessed   of   any   of   the   aforesaid   essential

qualifications,   he/she   shall   not   be   eligible

for   participating   in   selection   nor   can   be

appointed.

Under   the   relevant   rules   i.e.   Janjatiya

Vikas   Sikchan   Aur   Kermchariverg   Sewa

Niyamawali, 1991 of which a reference has been

made   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   also   shows

that   qualifications   requires   a   graduate   with

the   subject   of   Psychology,   with

L.T./B.T./B.Ed., as the case may be.

........ ......... .........

Be that as it may, in the advertisement in

pursuance of which the appellant had applied

the   prescribed   qualification   was   graduation

with   subject   Psychology   along   with

L.T./B.T./B.Ed.   degree.   That   being   so   the

appellant fully knew at the time of application

that   he   mus   possess   the   said   essential

9

qualifications   as   pronounced   in   the

advertisement.   In   case   he   was   aggrieved   by

description   of   such   qualifications,   he   could

have been better advised to challenge the said

advertisement event before applying but once he

has   applied   in   terms   of   the   aforesaid

advertisement   without   any   protest   he   cannot

take a turn and say that these conditions were

illegally placed in the same.”

11. The appellant has brought on record both the advertisement

as well as 1991 rules. The advertisement has been filed as

Annexure A­1 along with I.A.No.2 of 2013. The advertisement

was issued in Hindi newspaper “Dainik Jagran” and photocopy of

first page of the newspaper is also annexed at page 24 of

Annexure A­1. The translated copy in   English has also been

attached   at   page   6.   We   are   concerned   with   the   post   of

Psychologist in the present case. Hence, it is useful to refer

to the qualification prescribed for the aforesaid post.

12. The original advertisement being in vernacular Hindi, it

is   relevant   to   note   the   said   content   of   vernacular

advertisement which was to the following effect:

1मननववजजननक

03

18सस

35 वर

र

4500 ­

7000

मनननवजजन नवरय ममसनजतक

/ एल.टट./

बट.टट. बट.एड.     

। अधधमजनट अररतज

: 

1.   

बययरन ऑफ़ सजइकनललजट

,    

इलजरबजद यज

भजरत सरकजर दजरज मजनयतज पजप नकसट

अनय सससथज ममनडपलनमज इन गजइडमस

सजइकनललजट

2.         

नरसदट ममकजयरकज जजन

13. The English translation of the advertisement at Page 6 of

10

Annexure A­1 with regard to the post of Psychologist is as

follows:

1.Psychologist­

03

18­35

years

4500­

7000

Graduation in 

Psychology/L.T./B.T.B.Ed in 

the subject of Psychology.

Preferential 

Qualification: 

1.Diploma in guidance 

psychology from Bureau of 

Psychology, Allahabad or 

Government of India or from 

other recognized 

institutions, 

2.Working experience in 

Hindi

14. The careful reading of original advertisement which is in

vernacular language indicate that what was prescribed was, “In

Psychology subject graduate/L.T./B.T. B.Ed.”. Use of Stroke

between graduate and L.T./B.T. B.Ed. indicates that all were

alternate qualification. The advertisement cannot be read to

mean providing for graduate in Psychology with L.T./B.T. B.Ed.

as   has   been   read   by   the   High   Court   and   contended   by   the

respondent.

15.   The   words   graduate/L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   are   all   alternative

qualification   which   are   prefixed   with   word   “In   subject   of

Psychology”.   A   harmonious   reading   may   mean   that   a   person

graduate   in   subject   of   Psychology   or   L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   with

Psychology is eligible. When the post is of Psychologist, both

11

graduation   with   Psychology   and   training   certification   i.e.

L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   have   also   to   be   with   Psychology.   The

respondents have wrongly interpreted the advertisement to mean

that the person should possess both graduate with Psychology

as well as L.T./B.T. B.Ed. which on the face of it does not

appear to be correct.

16. Present is a case where appellant was called to appear in

written examination and interview and his name was included in

the merit list. It was only at the time of verification of the

certificate he was denied the appointment on the ground that

he does not fulfill the qualification as advertised, whereas

he fulfilled the advertised qualification.

17.There   is   one   more   reason   to   accept   the   meaning   of

advertisement as noticed above. In advertisement, with regard

to various qualifications, words “ यज" (or) “सजथ" (with), "अथवज"

(either)   and   stroke   ‘(/)’   have   been   used.   The   appointing

authority is well aware of the meaning of stroke ‘(/)’, word

“or”, “either” and “with” which has been frequently used in

the qualifications which is apparent from the advertisement

i.e.   Annexure     A­1.     The   Appointing   Authority   used   word

'with'(सजथ), when it wanted both the qualifications together.

Wherever stroke '(/)' has been used it was used when either of

the qualifications were indicated.  The advertisement Annexure

12

A­1 contains qualifications for various posts and in several

qualifications stroke (/) has been used.   A look into those

qualifications clearly indicate that stroke (/) was used in

the other qualifications denoting one or either qualification.

It is useful to extract some qualifications where stroke (/)

was used apart from qualification prescribed for the post of

Psychologist.  The use of stroke (/) in the qualifications at

Item No. 5 ­ Grah Mother, Item No. 6 – Karamshalal Prashikshak

Foundary Shop / Black Smith Shop, Item No.11 – Sewing Trainer,

Item No. 16 – Music Teacher   and Item No. 17 – Stitching

Trainer are extracted as below:­

5.Grah Mother 

­ 02

18­35

years

3200­4

900

Intermediate 

examination passed 

along with Home 

Science. Essential 

Qualification: two 

years practical 

experience of Grah 

Mother in any 

Institute/ Committee

6.Karamshalal 

Prashikshak 

Foundary 

Shop / Black

Smith Shop –

02

 ­do­4500­7

250

Intermediate 

examination passed from

U.P. Madhyamik 

Education Council or a 

Institution recognized 

by the Government 

equivalent thereto.  

Certificate of G.S.T.S.

for three years from 

the concerned branch or

Certificate of 

G.I.T.I./ I.T.I. from 

13

concerned branch or 

Diploma of Polytechnic.

Essential 

Qualification: Three 

Years Industrial 

experience after the 

Certificate. 

11.Sewing 

Trainer 

(National 

Baggers 

Home) ­ 01

­do­ 3050­4

590

Passed Intermediate or 

equivalent thereto and 

I.T.I. in concerned 

Trade/ Apprentice 

Certificate or Diploma.

16.Music 

Teacher­ 03

­do­4000­6

000

Intermediate passed 

from Music College or a

Certificate/ Diploma 

recognized by the 

Government. 

17.Stitching 

Trainer­01

­do­ ­do­Intermediate passed or 

equivalent thereto and 

ITI in concerned Trade,

Apprentice/ Certificate

or Diploma.  

Examination Fees 

:General Category 60/­ 

Other Backward Class 

40/­, Schedule 

Caste/Schedule Tribe 

25/­

A perusal of the above qualifications clearly indicated

that   stroke   (/)   was   used   regarding   qualifications,   in

alternative,   i.e.,   one   or   either.     In   above   view   of   the

matter, we are of the view that the use of stroke (/) between

Graduate / L.T. / B.T. B.Ed. were in the same line meaning

thereby one or either.  It is relevant to notice that before

the   aforesaid   qualifications,   the   words   “in   Psychology

14

subject” has been used as prefix, which clearly means that all

the   alternative   qualifications   were   required   to   have   with

Psychology subject i.e. Graduation with Psychology/L.T./B.T.

B.Ed. in the subject of Psychology.  Hence, all the three i.e.

Graduation, L.T., B.T. B.Ed. has to be in Psychology subject.

Those persons who have done L.T./B.T. B.Ed. with Psychology

subject are eligible like person graduated with Psychology,

which is the plain and simple meaning of the advertisement

which has been missed by the State as well as the High Court.

18.The Division Bench in support of its view has interpreted

the advertisement in the following manner:­

“.....Even otherwise, if the interpretation of

the learned counsel for the appellant is taken

as correct, it would mean that there will be a

different   set   of   candidates   namely,   one   who

possess   B.Ed.   degree   with   the   subject

Psychology   and   the   others   who   are   not   B.A.

with   Psychology,   but   if   they   are   B.Ed.   or

possess L.T./B.T. certificates, they would be

entitled for appointment.” 

The above view of the Division Bench that accepting the

interpretation of appellant would mean that there is different

set of candidates namely one who possess B.Ed. Degree with the

subject   Psychology   and   the   others   who   are   not   B.A.   with

Psychology,   but   if   they   are   B.Ed.   or   possess   L.T./B.T.

certificates,   they   would   be   entitled   for   appointment.   The

above view does not support the interpretation, which we have

15

put on the qualifications mentioned for the Psychologist i.e.

Graduate   L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   were   prefixed   with   the   “in     the

subject of Psychology”.  Thus, there is no question of there

being different set of candidates.  All candidates, who have

Psychology as their subject of Graduation/L.T./B.T. B.Ed. were

eligible     for   the   post   and   they   all   form   one   class,   i.e.

those, who have studied Psychology.   Thus, the view of the

High Court cannot be accepted.           

19. In the counter affidavit filed in this court also the said

qualifications are being read by the respondent as graduate in

Psychology with L.T./B.T. B.Ed. 1991 Rules have been filed as

Annexure   P­1   along   with   the   rejoinder   affidavit   of   the

appellant. It is relevant to note that in Schedule to the

Rules, the post of Psychologist has been referred to at page

166; it is relevant to quote the qualification mentioned in

the Schedule to the 1991 Rules, which is to the following

effect:

S.No.

Name

of

Post

No   

Of  

Post

Te  

total 

Per  

mp   

Source

of

recrui

t­ment

Eligib

ility

for

Direct

recrui

tment 

Age

Min.

Limit

Max.

Pay­Scale

10. Psycho

logist

4  4   8 Throug

h   the

commis

sion

M.A.

in

Psycho

logy

21 32 515­15

­590­1

8­626­

EB­18­

16

direct

ly

prefer

ably

B.Ed

or

diplom

a   from

any

recogn

ized

instit

ution

in

teachi

ng

subjec

t

68­20­

780­Eb

­20­86

0(Befo

re

regist

ration

)

20. The above rules clearly indicate that qualification for

Psychologist is M.A. in Psychology. There is no other column

in which Psychologist can be read in the entire rule.   The

B.Ed.   is   a   preferential   qualification   and   essential

qualification is only M.A. in Psychology according to 1991

Rules. It is relevant to note that although learned Single

Judge has referred to 1991 Rules but he observed that 1991

rules lays down the qualification as trained graduate along

with L.T./B.T. B.Ed., the above observations of learned Single

Judge   are   not   sustainable   in   view   of   the   qualification   as

prescribed in 1991 Rules as extracted above.

21. In the counter affidavit filed in this court by the state,

1991   rules   have   been   accepted   to   be   the   relevant   rules

regulating the recruitment as has been noted in the Paragraph

Xiii   extracted   above.   The   qualification   prescribed   in   the

17

Rules   does   not   provide   for   L.T./B.T.   B.Ed.   as   essential

qualification. Thus non­possession of L.T./B.T. B.Ed. does not

make him disqualified for the post as per Statutory Rules of

1991. Appellant is post­graduate in psychology and thus, also

fulfill the qualification prescribed in the 1991 Rules. The

respondent in counter affidavit had themselves come with the

case that the appointment has to be made in accordance with

the statutory rules. When under the statutory rules, 1991,

appellant fulfill the qualification; there is no occasion to

deny appointment to him.

22. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the

statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription.

Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory

rules, appellant fulfills the qualification and after being

selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary

and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in

the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is statutory

rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is

made in judgment of this Court in the case of   Malik Mazhar

Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006

(9) SCC 507.  Paragraph 21 of the judgment lays down above

proposition which is to the following effect:

"21. The present controversy has arisen as the

advertisement   issued   by   PSC   stated   that   the

18

candidates   who   were   within   the   age   on

01.07.2001   and   01.07.2002   shall   be   treated

within   age   for   the   examination.   Undoubtedly,

the excluded candidates were of eligible age as

per the advertisements but the recruitment to

the service can only be made in accordance with

the   Rules   and   the   error,   if   any,   in   the

advertisement   cannot   override   the   Rules   and

create   a   right   in   favour   of   a   candidate   if

otherwise not eligible according to the Rules.

The relaxation of age can be granted only of

permissible   under   the   Rules   and   not   on   the

basis   of   the   advertisement.   If   the

interpretation   of   the   Rules   by   PSC   when   it

issued   the   advertisement   was   erroneous,   no

right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore,

the answer to the question would turn upon the

interpretation of the Rules.”

23.It has also come on the record that although the post of

Psychologist   was   declared   as   dead   cadre   by   the   Government

Order   dated   09.05.2008,   but   the     posts   were   subsequently

revived   by   another   Government   Order   dated   17.08.2010.

Reference of 2009 Rules, namely, Uttar Pradesh Social Welfare

Department of Teacher Service Rule, 2009, has been made which

may have no relevance with regard to issue in the present case

since   the   appointment   in   the   present   case   was   made   in

pursuance   of   the   1991   Rules   and   advertisement   was   dated

30.08.2001. The appellant after being selected for the post of

Psychologist   was   illegally   denied   issuance   of   appointment

letter on wrong interpretation of the advertisement and the

rules, hence, the appellant has made out a case for issuing a

19

direction to appoint him on the post of Psychologist. 

24. We, thus, direct the respondents to issue an appointment

order to the appellant in pursuance of his selection against

the advertisement dated 30.08.2001 on the post of Psychologist

within a period of two months from the date, copy of this

Order is produced before the respondents. 

25. The judgments of the High Court are set aside and the

appeals are allowed accordingly.

..........................J.

( A.K. SIKRI )

..........................J.

     ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI,

JANUARY 31,2018.