ORDER
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 responden! 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 13th February, 1995 and was directed to appear before the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court for interview under Anx. 2. The pelilioner appeared on 6th March 1995 and, thereafter, he was called upon for an oral test on 7th March, 1995. According to me 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.
(3). 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 lhat the 4th respondenl 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. 207- 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 reiax the qualifications and, therefore, the appointment made while purporting to relax the qualifications, is wholly without jurisdiction.
(4). Mr. Singhvi, in support of his conteniion has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shelly 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 Ilnd Class hotel or restaurant and having atleast 5 years' experience as such should be eligible to submit a tender. Ciling [he 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 circumslanccs unless it is clearly staled that the qualifications are relaxable.
(5). The 3rd decision cited by Mr. M.R. Singhvi is (West Bengal Electricity Board vs. Pate! Engineering Co. Ltd. and others) (3), This decision was cited by him for the proposilion lhat 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.
(6). Concluding his arguments, Mr. Singhvi submitted that Ihe 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 concernedare clearly discriminatory since it excluded persons tike the petitioner or similarly situated from being selected as Carpenters in the services of the Rajasthan High Court.
(7). 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,'
(8). 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.
(9). As already noticed, the judgment cited by Mr. Singhvi and reported in AIR 1990 (3) SCC. 655 (supra) has clearly staled 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 Ihe 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.
(10). We directed the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 to place before us the relevant files relating to the entire selection and appointment. Accordingly, Mr. Sangeet Lodha has placed before us the relevant file. We have perused the same. It is seen from the file that on 6.2.95 the Hon'ble Chief Justice made the following remarks in the file:-
'Retaxation is given to Bilal Ahmed & Babulal Sharma, Peons for appearing in interview for the post of Carpenter Hon'ble M.P, Singh to interview.
SD/-
G.C.Mital'
(11). Then Hon'ble Justice M.P. Singh fixed the interview on 6.3.95. It is seen from the file at paragraph 93 that interview call letters have been sent to 4 candidates vide despatch number shown against their names. All the persons who were sent the interview call letters attended the Office for interview for the post of Carpenter. All the candidates were asked to prepare a peg table by giving them two hours. The following candidates prepared the peg table in the given time as under- it was started at 12.30 p.m.
Time
I.
Sh. BilalAluned
_
2.00 PM
(R. 3)
1
Sh. Babulal
_
2.00 PM
(R. 4)
3.
Sh. Paras Ram
-
2.00 PM
(Petitioner)
4.
Sh. Ram Swaroop
_
2.00 PM
(12). Shri Ram Lakhan could not complete Hie lable within the prescribed time. All the candidates were, thereafter, directed to be present on 6,3.95 at 2,30 PM for interview. All the applicants were subjected to praclical test on 6.3,95 and they also appeared before Hon'ble Justice M.P. Singh on 7th March, 1995 for interview.
'After taking into consideration the quality of work and experience and also (he order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 6th February, 1995 relaxing the minimum requisite educational qualifications of Bilal Ahmed and Babulal, who had been working in the High Court as Class IV employees since 1985 and 1986 respectively, I am of the view that Bilal Ahmed and Babulal may be given appointment as regular Carpenters in the High Court.
SD/-
M.P. Singh
7.3.95'
(13). Accepting the above recommendation made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.P.Singh, Ihe Hon'ble Chief Justice passed the following order:-
'1 agree with Brother M.P. Singh, J. Necessary orders be issued.
SD/-
A.P. Ravani
13.3.95'
(14). It is also seen from the records that the respondent No.4 had not enclosed the postel order of Rs. 207- in favour of the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, along with his application and. therefore, he was required by order dated 23.5.95 to present the required postal order which was submitted.by him on 23.5.95. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that non submission of the postal order was not material and the candidature of the respondent No.4 was rigtly taken into consideration.
(15). We have already referred to the pleadings and also the relevant rules. As already seen, 4 candidates appeared on 6th March 1995 and were given job of making peg table and, thereafter, they were interviewed on 7th March, 1995 and after taking into consideration the quality and experience, respondent No.3 and 4 were found suitable for appointmeni as Carpenters by order dated 23.3.95 Anx. 3 and they were appointed as Carpenters. It is also pertinent to notice thai the respondent No.3 and 4 were already in service of the High Court for more than 7 to 8 years as Class IV employees and their services were being utilised as Carpenters as and when required and according to the respondents their performance and working as Carpenters were to the satisfaction of their superiors. Therefore, the Hon'ble Chief Justice, taking into considera-tion of the past services and the work of the Carpenters and looking to the experience and performance, in exercise of his ppwers conferred by Rule 17, has though it fit to relax the qualification required for the post of Carpenter, in favour of respondent No.3 and 4 and, therefore, their selection, in our opinion, cannot at alt be faulted with.
(16), The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, questioning the authority of the Chief Justice in relaxing the rule in fit and proper cases is misconceived.
(17). We have already referred to the relevant rules and both the rules, Rule 2B and Rule 17 give enormous powers to Ihe Chief Justice to relax the qualification as and when the relaxation is necessitated.
(18). It is further argued by Mr, Singhvi that once qualifications are prescribed under the advertisement, the same cannot be relaxed.
(19). It is seen from the advertisement that the High Court reaserve in itself the ultimate decision regarding the suitability of the candidate to be interviewed and selected. A perusal of the record would also go to show that the petitioner, along with others, were interviewed and the candidature of the respondents No.3 and 4 were accepted for the reasons recorded by the Interviewing Judge and as accepted by theChief Justice. Therefore, there is no question of any discrimination, with regard to the appointments made.
(20). As already noticed, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has relaxed the educational qualification in favour of respondent No. 3 and 4, who is the appointing authority to relax in matters like this and, therefore, the selection and appointment of respondents No 3 and 4, in our opinion, by relaxing the rule, is perfectly in order and, does not call for any interference by this Court.
(21). The writ petition fails and is dismissed.