rsitySelection Committee must mention in its proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxations if any in respect of each of the candidates in whose favour relaxation is made
197D 189 v The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee should be preserved for a sufficiently long time and if the selection process is challenged until the challenge is finally disposed of An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if the minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken that they are not available
197E F  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition C No 6324 of 1992
From the Judgment and Order dated 20111991 of the Rajasthan High Court in DB Civil Spl
Appeal No 226 of 1991
SK Jain for the Petitioner
Manoj Swarup Ms Lallta Kohli For Ms Manoj Swarup  Co and SK Bhattacharya for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered By this petition the petitioner has challenged the appointment of six respondents from General Category as Assistant Professors Lecturers in the Department of History in the University of Rajasthan
The University invited applications by its advertisement dated 12101983 for appointment to 10 posts of Assistant Professors Lecturers
The last date for submitting applications was 14111983
Out of 112 ap plications received the Scrutiny Committee of the University on 2541984 recommended 106 candidates for being interviewed the remaining six being found ineligible for the posts
Out of the 106 candidates so recommended only 65 candidates appeared for interview out of which the Scrutiny Committee selected 8 candidates who are respondents 5 to 12 before us
Out of the 8 two were earmarked for the reserved posts
We are not concerned with the selection of the said two candidates under the reserved category
The Scrutiny Committee also placed five other candidates including the present petitioner on the waiting list
The minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor Lecturer as laid down by Ordinance 149 B of the Handbook of the University of Rajasthan Part II Volume I are as follows 190 141 B The following shall be the minimum qualifications for University teachers in the Faculties of articles Fine Arts Social Sciences Commerce and Science  A Minimum qualifications for LecturersResearch Associates in the Faculties of Arts Social Sciences Science and Commerce  Except in the subjects of English Modern European Languages Physical Education Health Education  Sports Journalism and Home Science a A Doctorate degree or research work of an equally high standard and b Good academic record with at least a second class C in the seven point scale Master s degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary programmes the degree in a and b above may be in relevant subjects
Provided that if the Selection Committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of a very high standard it may relax any of the qualifications prescribed in b above Provided further that if a candidate possessing a Doctorate degree or equivalent research work is not available or is not considered suitable a person possessing a good academic record weightage being given to MPhil or equivalent degree or research work of quality may be appointed provided he has done research work for at least two years or has practical experience in a research laboratoryorganisation on the condition that he will have to obtain a Doctorate degree or give evidence of research of high standard within eight years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increments until he fulfills these requirements
 Although these were the qualifications required by the University Ordinance the advertisement inviting applications stated the following 191 qualifications as necessary for being eligible to the posts  ASSISTANT PROFESSORS LECTURERS Except in the subject of Drawing  Painting and Dramatics Education Management studies and English
a A Doctorate s degree or research work of an equally high standard and b Good academic record with at least second class C in the seven point scale Master s degree in a relevant subject from an Indian University orequivalent degree from a foreign University
Having regard to the need for developing interdisciplinary programmes the degrees in a and b above may be in relevant subjects Provided that if the selection committee is of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work is of very high standard it may relax any of qualifications prescribed in b above  Provided further that if a candidate possessing a Doctor s degree of equivalent research work is not available or is not considered suitable a person possessing a good academic record weightage being given to MPhil or equivalent degree or research work of quality may be appointed provided he has done research work for at least two years or has practical experience in a research laboratoryorganisation on the condition that he will have to obtain a Doctor s degree or give evidence of research of high standard within eight years of his appointment failing which he will not be able to earn future increment until he fulfils these requirements
EXPLANATION For determining good academic record  the following criteria shall be adopted  i A candidate holding a PhD degree should possess at least 192 a second class Master s degree or ii A candidate without a PhD degree should possess a high second class Master s degree and second class in the Bachelor s degree or iiia candidate not
possessing Ph D degree but possessing second class Master s degree should have obtained first class in the Bachelor s degree
Persons having secured marks more than the mid point of the prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in the second division and the prescribed minimum marks for passing an examination in the first division by a university shall be deemed to have passed that examination in the high second class 
It will be apparent that there was a divergence in the qualifications as per the University Ordinance as quoted in the written submissions on behalf of respondent No 5 and the qualifications as per the advertisement as stated in the rejoinder of the petitioner since in particular the Explana tion does not find place in the Ordinance
The University itself has produced before us neither the Ordinance nor the advertisement issued
In the absence of a copy of the relevant Ordinance however it is not possible to say as to whether the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement were at variance with those mentioned in the advertisement
Be that as it may
It will thus be obvious from the requirement of the aforesaid qualifications that on the last date for submitting the applications a candidate applying for the said posts should have had a doctorate Degree in the relevant subject or research work of an equally high standard in the relevant subject and b good academic record with at least a second class Master s Degree in the relevant subject
However if the Selection Committee was of the view that the research work of a candidate as evident either from his thesis or from his published work was of a very
high standard the Scrutiny Committee could relax the qualification that the candidate should have had at least a doctorate Degree or research work of an equally high standard and good academic record with at least a second class Master s Degree
Secondly if the candidate possessing a doctorate degree or 193 equivalent research work was not available or even if available was not suitable the candidate possessing a good academic record preferably MPhil or equivalent Degree or research work of quality could also be appointed provied he had done research work for at least two years or had practical experience in a research LaboratoryOrganisation
However this relaxation could be given on the condition that the candidate would obtain a doctorate Degree or give evidence of research of high standard within eight years of his appointment
If he did not satisfy the second requirement all that he could be visited with was a handicap that he would not be able to earn future increments until he fulfilled the said requirement
It is therefore obvious that a doctorate Degree was not a must and the lack of doctorate Degree could be made up by either of the qualifications laid down above
None of the candidates except respondent No10 who had applied and appeared for interview including the petitioner possessed the doctorate Degree by the last date of submitting the applications for the posts
The six candidates from the general category whose appointment is challenged before us and who are respondents 5 6 7 8 10 and 11 before us had on the relevant date the following qualifications according to the Scrutiny Committee SI Name Respon Doctorate Published Good Good 2year No dent No Degree works of Record Record research high No No Standard 1
DrMiss 11 No No Yes Yes No santosh Sharma Awarded on 4185 2Shri Krishna 6 No No Yes Yes No Gopal Sharma 3
DrMrs
 10 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Vibha Updhyaya 4MissSaroj 7 No No Yes Yes No Sharma 5Dr
Shyam 5 No
Yes Yes No Yes Singh Awarded Ratnawat on 141284 6Miss 8 No No Yes Yes No Pramila Passed Sharma MA in 1982 194 It is apparent that respondent No 5 had no doctorate Degree
He had good academic record in MA but did not have good record in BA
He had published work of high standard and also two years  research work to his credit
Respondent No6 had no doctorate Degree
He had however good academic record both in MA and BA but had neither any published work of high standard nor two years research experience to his credit
Respondent No7 had no doctorate Degree
She had however good academic record both in MA and RA She had not published work of high standard nor had she two years  research work to her credit
Respondent No 8 had no doctorate Degree
She had however good academic record both in MA
and BA though she did not have to her credit published work of high standard nor two research work
Respondent No10 had doctorate Degree and also a good academic record both in MA and BA
She had also experience of two years research work though there was no published work of high standard to her credit
Respondent No11 had no doctorate Degree
She had however good academic record both in MA and BA She had no published work of high standard or two years  research work to her credit
It is on record that respondent Nos 5 and 11 were awarded doctorate Degree on 14121984 and 411985 respectively which is of course irrelevant since the qualifications had to be judged with reference to the last date for submitting the applications for the posts
Thus except in the case of respondent No10 the qualifications of the other selected candidates had to be relaxed by the scrutiny Committee
However there is no record of the minutes of the meetings of the Scrutiny Committee to show whether and in what manner the Scrutiny Committee had applied its mind and relaxed their qualifications
The affidavit filed on behalf of the University shows that the minutes if kept were destroyed
It was sought to be argued by Shri Manoj Swarup on behalf of the University that since at the time of the selection respondent Nos 5 and 11 had obtained their doctorate Degrees they could be said to have fulfilled the qualifications
He also argued that since respondent Nos 6 and 7 were registered for PhD on 2211982 and 2651982 respectively by the time of the selection they had put in research work connected with their thesis and in February 1985 viz the date of selection they had about 3 years  experience in research work
As regards respondent No 8 she had good 195 acadamic record both in MA and BA
and the Scrutiny Committee could under the Ordinance relax the qualifications as admittedly sufficient number of candidates with the doctorate Degree were not available
He also urged in this connection that even the petitioner did not have the doctorate Degree
He further submitted that it was open to the Scrutiny Committee to weigh the over all qualifications of the candidates and relax the required qualifications in favour of the deserving and suitable candidates which the Scrutiny Committee did or should be deemed to have done
The Scrutiny Committee was a high power Committee and after interviewing 65 candidates it had selected only 8 candidates and had placed them in the order of merit
The Court should not therefore interfere with the said selection
He further pointed out that the candidates had already been appointed in February 1985 and they have been working eversince till date
Some of them are also due for promotion to the higher posts in the near future
Their record of teaching so far has been excellent and unblemished
Whatever may be the defects in the selections this Court may not interfere with the said process of selection at this late stage
5The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected
The date of selection is invariably uncertain
In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not if they are yet to acquire the qualifications
Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged whether the said date is of selection or otherwise it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts
The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence viz even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications
But a still worse consequence may follow in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices
The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others arbitrarily
Hence in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisementnotification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications
We have 196 therefore no hesitation in holding that when the selection Committee in the present case as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications it acted with patent illegality and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed
Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in AP Public Service Commission Hyderabad  Anr
vs B Sarat Chandra  Ors and The District Collector  Chairman Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vidanagaran  Anr
vs M Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 4 SLR 237
6However for the reasons which follow we are not inclined to set aside the selections in spite of the said illegality
The selected candidates have been working in the respective posts since February 1985
We are now in January 1993
Almost eight years have elapsed
There is also no record before us to show as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits of the candidates and to relax the minimum qualifications in favour of some in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in it under the University Ordinance
If the considerations which weighed with the Committee in relaxing the requisite qualifications were valid it would result in injustice to those who have been selected
We however feel it necessary to emphasise and bring to the notice of the University that the illegal practices in the selection of candidates which have come to light and which seem to be followed usually at its end must stop forthwith
it is for this purpose that we lay down the following guidelines for the future selection process A The University must note that the qualifications it advertises for the posts should not be at variance with those prescribed by its ordinanceStatutes
B The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last date for making applications for the posts in question or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisementnotification for the purpose
The qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said date should not be taken into consideration as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination
It must be remembered that when the advertisementnotification represents that the candidates must have the qualifications in ques 197 tion with reference to the last date for making the applications or with reference to the specific date mentioned for the purpose those who do not have such qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire them after the said date
In the circumstances many who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even be better then those who apply can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration
When the University or its Selection Committee relaxes the minimum required qualifications unless it is specifically stated in the advertisementnotification both that the qualifications will be relaxed and also the conditions on which they will be relaxed the relaxation will be illegal
D The UniversitySelection Committee must mention in its proceedings of selection the reasons for making relaxations if any in respect of each of the candidates in whose favour relaxation is made
The minutes of the meetings of the Selection Committee should be preserved for a sufficiently long time and if the selection process is challenged until the challenge is finally disposed of
An adverse inference is liable to be drawn if the minutes are destroyed or a plea is taken that they are not available
7Although therefore for reasons stated above we deem it inadvisable to interfere in the selections made in the present case we direct that the University and its Selection Committee should observe the above norms in all future selections
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed subject to the above directions
GN Petition dismissed


Summary:
The respondent was a tenant at the rate of Rs 18333 per month In the suit premises
The respondent was in arrears of rent with effect from 131980 to 2821983
On 7th March 1983 predecessor in interest of appellant No2 and appellant No1 flied an application for eviction of the respondent on the ground of non payment of rent
The Rent Controller on 2971986 passed an order of eviction
On 1381986 the respondent deposited a sum of Rs 9500 In the court of the Rent Controller
According to the appellant the account deposited was not In according with the order dated 29th July 1986
They filed the execution petition before the Rent Controller seeking possession of the suit premises
The Rent Controller framed two Issues a whether the tender made by the respondent of the rent amount was short as alleged  b Relief
108 The Rent Controller held that the tender made by the respondent was short of Rs 16129
While deciding issue No 2 the Rent Controller allowed 15 days  time to deposit the said amount
The appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller riled a revision petition in the High Court
Before the High Court the appellants submitted that the executing court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for making good the deficiency of Rs 16129 inasmuch as since period of 30 days was fixed by the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987 itself the court could not either enlarge or abridge this period
The High Court dismissed the revision petition holding that the respondent was not liable to be evicted and also held that the order of the executing court extending time to deposit Rs 16129 in pursuance of its order dated 2971986 was of no consequence
The landlord riled this appeal by special leave against the High Court s judgment
The respondent tenant submitted that sub section 2 of Section 14 gave discretion to the Controller to pass an order of eviction or not to pass an order of eviction even if the ground mentioned in clauses i to v of Sub section 2 of Section 14 were made out that the order of eviction which was passed was not the final order in the sense that it was an interim order and the final order was passed only after the expiry of 30 days if the tenant failed to avail of the second opportunity provided by the third proviso to clause i of sub section 2 of Section 14
Allowing the appeal of the landlord this Court HELD101
The Rent Control Acts are measures to protect tenants from eviction except on certain specified grounds if found established
Once the grounds are made out and subject to any further condition which may be provided in the Act the tenants would suffer ejectment
Again the protection given in the Acts is not to give licence for continuous litigation and bad blood
117H 102The legislature which made the Act could not have envisaged that after the parties finish of one round of litigation the party should be 109 relegated to another round of litigation for recovery of rent which accrued pendente lite
Whatever protection Rent Acts give they do not give blanket protection for non payment of rent 
This basic minimum has to be complied with by the tenants
Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he can continue to enjoy the same without payment of rent
118A B 103Rent Control Acts are necessary social measures for protection of tenants
The Rent Control Laws have tried to balance the equity
Landlord is duty bound to satisfy the ground of eviction mentioned in various Rent Acts and if he does not satisfy he cannot get the order of eviction merely because the Act restricts his rights
122E 104There are certain Rent Acts which even when a ground of eviction is satisfied still confer powers on the Rent Controller to consider the question of comparative hardship and it is only in those types of cases if the Controller is satisfied he cap decline passing orders of eviction
But if there is no such limitations the Rent Controllers after the ground of eviction specified in the Act is made out have no discretion to reject the application
Once the order of eviction is passed the executing court is duty bound to execute its orders
No question of equity or hardship arises at that stage
122F G 201There is no provision in the Act for giving powers to the Controller to direct payment or deposit of pendente lite rent for each month during the pendency of the petition for eviction of the tenant
First Proviso to sub section 2 of Section 14 shows that in order to show payment or valid tender as contemplated by clause i of sub section 2 of Section 14 by a tenant in default he has to pay on the first date of bearing the arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs of the application which are to be assessed by the Controller
116G H 202Sub clause i of sub section 2 of Section 14 gives two opportunities to the tenant to avoid eviction
Ile first opportunity to avoid eviction is if the tenant avails of the benefit of first proviso
This opportunity is before the passing of the order of eviction
The second opportunity is after the order of eviction
The order which is passed for eviction is final in the sense as it is not an interim order
If the tenant avails of the second opportunity as provided in the third proviso then the order of eviction becomes inexecutable and he saves himself from eviction
119G 110 203The Controller is required to dismiss the eviction application if he is not satisfied to the existence of any ground mentioned in clauses i to v of sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Act but where the Controller is satisfied with existence of any of the grounds mentioned in clauses 1 to v of sub section 2 of Section 14 the Controller has no discretion to decline to pass the order of eviction
119B 204The order which the Controller passed was a composite order of eviction in the sense that if the tenant wanted to save himself from eviction he had to comply with the order
The order which was passed by the Controller cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction
It may be a right order it may have been a wrong order
It was not a nullity that the executing court will ignore it
But at the stage when the execution application was riled the Rent Controller could not go behind its own order dated 2971986
118C 205If the Controller could not go behind Its own order in execution proceedings the High Court could not also go behind the order in revision against the order of Controller refusing execution
It was not the appropriate stage for the High Court to examine what order ought to have been passed or to limit the efficacy of the order to its interpretation of the words amount due as mentioned in the third proviso to clause i of subsection 2 of Section 14
118D E 206The landlord as per the scheme of the section cannot be worse off vis a vis a tenant who was good enough to deposit in court the arrears of rent together with interest and costs on the first date of hearing
117D 207In the present case the tenant spared no efforts to harass the landlords
After the order of eviction dated 29th July 1986 the matter did not rest there
The tenant again failed to pay the rent and the landlord was forced to file another eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent for the period from 131983 to 30111986 and it was only after the filing of the said eviction petition and in order to avoid eviction he deposited the rent
It was only after the notice of the Special Leave Petition was issued the tenant chose to pay the rent from 1121986 after keeping it in arrears for practically six years
123A B Om Parkash vs Sarla Kumari  Ors 1991 1 Sim
LC 45 referred to
111 Shri Krishnan Kumar vs Shri Gurbux Singh  approved
Shyamcharan Sharma vs Daramdas   Miss Santosh Mehta vs Om Prakash and others   Ram Murti vs Bhola Nath and another 1984 3 SCC Ill and Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and another vs Lakshmi Naryan Gupta   distinguished
301The amount due occurring in the third proviso in the context will mean the amount due on and upto the date of the order of eviction
It will take into account not merely the arrears of rent which gave cause of action to file a petition for eviction but also include the rent which accumulated during the pendency of eviction petition as well
If the tenant has been paying the rent during the pendency of the eviction petition to the landlord the amount due will be only arrears which have not been paid
117C D 302It will be advisable if the Controller while passing the order of eviction on the ground specified in clause 1 of sub section 2 of Section 14 of the Act specifies the amount due till the date of the order and not merely leave it to the parties to contest it after passing of the order of eviction as to what was the amount due
117F 303In the context in which the expression may  is used it means shall
Otherwise the section would read that got only the Controller can reject an application when he is not satisfied with the ground but is also entitled to dismiss the application when he is so satisfied
 Such an intention cannot be attributed to the legislature particularly when the consequences of non satisfaction is expressly mentioned
Even if the consequences of non satisfaction was not mentioned the expression may  occurring would still mean shall and all that would mean Is that if the grounds are not made out he will be bound to dismiss the application and If the grounds are made out he is bound to pass the order of eviction
If any other interpretation Is given to the word may the section may itself become subject matter of challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The Court shall avoid interpretation which make the provisions violative of the Constitution if possible
117C F 112