The High Court allowed the writ petition and recorded as follows:- “Now, we are called upon to decide whether language of the qualification clause is a mandatory character or not. We are of the view that this clause is mandatory in all sense since words “must have” used in the said notification in clear terms it indicate so. Hence, going thereby first preference shall be given to all the candidates having qualification of Shorthand English by higher grade and in the event no candidate is available from higher grade, next lower grade candidate has to be considered. To be very specific, no initiative shall be made to invite any application from the candidates possessing qualification of English Shorthand by lower grade, until required number of candidates having qualification of Shorthand by lower grade is found to be unsuitable. Thus, at the first instance, respondent no. 3 was not eligible to be considered when a number of Shorthand English by higher-grade candidates were found being considered. Selection ought to have been kept confined to candidates having qualification of English Stenography by higher grade, after having found non-suitability amongst those candidates, candidates of the category of third respondent should have been invited.” 7. We regret to say that it is rather difficult to understand the substance of the above extracted para, we hazard a guess that in substance, the High Court held that so long as the candidates who have passed the English Shorthand Higher Grade Examination are available, candidates with shorthand lower grade can not be considered. 8. There is no finding by the High Court that suitable candidates with Shorthand higher grade are available. If the procedure required by the High Court was to be followed, there would be avoidable wastage of time. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant pointed to the copy of the answer script of the first respondent herein. It consists of innumerable errors. We only hope that it is not the desire of the High Court that such candidates are required to be appointed merely because they have the higher grade qualification. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the selection process should not have been interfered with.

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4201 OF 2015
               (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12662 of 2014)


K. Radhika                                   …..Appellant

            Versus

T. Rajya Laxmi & Others                            …..Respondents





                             J U D G M E N T



Chelameswar, J.

1.    Leave granted.


2.    All the respondents have been served but none appears  for  anyone  of
the respondents.

3.    Aggrieved by a judgment of the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  Writ
Petition No. 37437 of 2012 dated  2nd  April,  2014,  the  third  respondent
therein preferred the appeal.

4.    The facts leading to the impugned judgment are as follows:

      On 27.12.2011,  a  notification  was  issued  by  the  office  of  the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad inviting applications to  fill  up  5
posts of the Personal Assistants by  direct  recruitment  in  A.P.  Judicial
Ministerial Service, in the unit of Metropolitan Sessions Judge,  Hyderabad.
The notification prescribed the following qualifications:-
“1.   Must have passed Intermediate  Examination  conducted  by  A.P.  State
Board of Intermediate Education or any equivalent Examination.

2.    Must have passed A.P.  Government  Technical  Examination  in  English
Shorthand by Higher Grade, provided that if candidates, who have passed  the
examination by the Higher Grade are not available,  those  who  have  passed
the examination by Lower Grade will be considered.

3.    Must have passed Typewriting examination in English  by  Higher  Grade
conducted by the State  Board  of  Technical  Education  and  Training  A.P.
Hyderabad.

4.    Preference  will  be  given  to  the  persons,  who  possess  Computer
knowledge.”

5.    44 candidates applied in response to the notification.  The  selection
process consisted of a written examination followed  by  an  interview.   In
the said selection process, the appellant was declared selected.

6.    Challenging the selection  of  the  appellant,  the  first  respondent
herein filed the above-mentioned  writ  petition  on  the  ground  that  the
appellant herein was having only the  qualification  of  a  lower  grade  in
shorthand whereas the first respondent  herein  passed  the  examination  in
English shorthand by higher grade  and,  therefore,  the  selection  of  the
appellant is contrary to the selection  process  and  arbitrary.   The  High
Court allowed the writ petition and recorded as follows:-
“Now, we are called upon to decide whether  language  of  the  qualification
clause is a mandatory character or not.   We  are  of  the  view  that  this
clause is mandatory in all sense since words “must have” used  in  the  said
notification in clear terms it indicate  so.   Hence,  going  thereby  first
preference shall be given to all  the  candidates  having  qualification  of
Shorthand English  by  higher  grade  and  in  the  event  no  candidate  is
available  from  higher  grade,  next  lower  grade  candidate  has  to   be
considered.  To be very specific, no initiative shall be made to invite  any
application  from  the  candidates  possessing  qualification   of   English
Shorthand by  lower  grade,  until  required  number  of  candidates  having
qualification of Shorthand by lower grade is found to be unsuitable.   Thus,
at the first instance, respondent no. 3 was not eligible  to  be  considered
when a number of Shorthand English by  higher-grade  candidates  were  found
being considered.  Selection ought to have been kept confined to  candidates
having qualification of English Stenography by higher  grade,  after  having
found non-suitability amongst those candidates, candidates of  the  category
of third respondent should have been invited.”


7.    We regret to say  that  it  is  rather  difficult  to  understand  the
substance of the above extracted para, we hazard a guess that in  substance,
the High Court held that so long as  the  candidates  who  have  passed  the
English Shorthand Higher Grade Examination are  available,  candidates  with
shorthand lower grade can not be considered.

8.    There is no finding by the High Court that  suitable  candidates  with
Shorthand higher grade are available.  If  the  procedure  required  by  the
High Court was to be followed, there would be avoidable wastage of time.

9.    On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant  pointed  to  the
copy of the answer script of the first respondent  herein.  It  consists  of
innumerable errors.   We only hope that it is not the  desire  of  the  High
Court that such candidates are required to be appointed merely because  they
have the higher grade qualification.    In the circumstances, we are of  the
opinion that the selection process should not have been interfered with.





10.   We, therefore, allow the appeal  and  set  aside  the  judgment  under
appeal.  No costs.

                                         …................................J.
                                             (J. Chelameswar)


                                           …….............................J.
                                                      (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

New Delhi
May 5, 2015



-----------------------
5