THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20314 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus to declare Notification No. 1 of 2010, dated 19.07.2010, issued by the 2nd respondent Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, inviting applications through online from qualified candidates for recruitment of resident teachers and staff nurses on contract basis in various residential institutions run and managed by the said society and located through out the State, as illegal and arbitrary. The writ petitioner submits that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community and that she has passed the X Class, SSC examination by securing 49% of marks and two-year Intermediate course with 49% of marks and Graduation with 46% of marks. She has secured the Post Graduate degree of M.A. in Public Administration from the Andhra University and passed the same in I Class. She has also secured the B.Ed. qualification from the Acharya Nagarjuna University securing 66% of marks at the said examination. The writ petitioner challenges the validity of Notification No. 1 of 2010, for the following reasons: 1) The Rule of reservation inviting Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other Physically Challenged persons has not been properly followed by the 2nd respondent society. 2) The eligibility criteria has not been fixed by the 2nd respondent society, duly relaxing their rigor insofar as the Scheduled Castes candidates are concerned and consequently, the notification has been issued in violation of the provision contained in Article 335 of the Constitution of India. 3) Further, the relevant qualification for the purpose of recruitment is a Post Graduate degree qualification together with the professional qualification of teaching, namely B.Ed. Instead, the 2nd respondent society has also taken into account and consideration the irrelevant criteria, namely a Graduation degree with marks of not less than 55% as one of the criteria and consequently, the notification is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the writ petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4) No weightage for such of those candidates, who are likely to cross the upper age limit in a short time, has been accorded and consequently, if the present turn of employment opportunity is missed out by them, they will completely get eliminated from the zone of consideration when the selections or recruitment process is undertaken next time around. Therefore, an unfair mechanism and method has been adopted by the 2nd respondent while fixing the eligibility criteria in the impugned notification and hence, it deserves to be set at naught. 5) Finally, it was also contended that in terms of Section 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, every employer, shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify the vacancy to such employment exchanges as may be prescribed and in contravention thereof, the 2nd respondent society has been receiving applications online. Since violation of the compulsion thrust by Section 4 of the aforementioned Act being recognized as a penal offence, in terms of Section 7 thereof, the impugned notification deserves to be set at naught. I have heard Sri Gollamudi Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and I am deeply distressed that I am not in a position to concede and accede to any one of the submissions canvassed by him. Article 335 of the Constitution, in terms, provides for consideration of the claims of the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be taken into consideration consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, while making appointments to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. Proviso to Article 335 adds that nothing in the said Article shall prevent the State from making any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for providing for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. The compulsion thrust by Article 335 of the Constitution of India on the State is that it shall not preclude consideration of the cases of the members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes while making appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the union or the State. It is required to consider the cases of the members belonging to Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes and while doing so, the State is also empowered to make a provision to adopt relaxed standards or norms of selection. The State is also empowered to set apart certain posts or vacancies to be exclusively filled in by the members belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A bare perusal of the impugned notification discloses that the 2nd respondent society has made it abundantly clear that the rule of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other Physically sChallenged persons will be observed as prescribed by the society rules and as per the roaster. Therefore, the apprehension entertained by the writ petitioner that the protection available to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in terms of Article 335 is not being accorded by the 2nd respondent society, is only liable to be recorded for it to be rejected. Now, when we examine the eligibility criteria, it has been made clear that no candidate should cross 39 years of age as on 01.07.2010. However, when it comes to the question of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, it is made abundantly clear that this age limit is liable to be relaxed by a further five-year period. Insofar as the candidates belonging to Backward classes are concerned, the upper age limit is notified as relaxable by a four-year period. Insofar as the Physically Challenged category candidates are concerned, the upper age limit was notified as relaxable by nine years. It was further made clear that a three- year relaxation would be accorded to all such teachers, who have rendered a minimum service of six months in an academic year in the said society. Therefore, the criteria of upper age limit is also sought to be relaxed by the 2nd respondent society in the impugned notification. When we turn to the academic qualifications, it is pointed out that the general candidates were required to possess a I class in Graduation degree qualification with not less than 60% of marks in optional subjects. They are also required to possess a I class in Post Graduate degree in the relevant subject with not less than 60% of marks. They are further required to possess at least II class in B.Ed. degree with not less than 50% of marks, in theory and practical with relevant methods of teaching from a recognized university. In contrast to this, candidates belonging to Scheduled Cates, with which category we are concerned in this Writ Petition, the candidates are required to possess the following qualifications: 1) a II Class in Graduation degree with not less than 55% of marks from a University; 2) at least a II class in Post Graduation degree with not less than 55% of marks 3) a B.Ed. degree with relevant methods of teaching. It is, therefore, crystal clear that in contrast to the prescription of a I Class in Graduation qualification and I class in Post Graduate qualification for open competition candidates, candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes are only required to possess a II class Graduation degree qualification securing not less than 55% of marks and similarly, at least II class in Post Graduate qualification, securing not less than 55% of marks. While an open competition candidate was also required to possess at least a II class in B.Ed. with not less than 50% of marks, both in theory and practical with relevant methods of teaching, a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes is not required to possess at least a II class in B.Ed. degree qualification and it is enough if he/she merely possesses the B.Ed. qualification with the relevant methods of teaching. Therefore, to my mind, relaxed criteria of academic qualifications are also prescribed and adopted for selecting the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, but however, what the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend is that the prescription of a II class in Degree qualification with not less than 55% of marks from a recognized university is an irrelevant qualification. As was already noticed supra, the writ petitioner has passed her Graduation degree qualification by securing only 46% of marks and hence, she fell through the eligibility criteria prescribed. The posts that are sought to be filled in are teacher posts. The schools are run by the 2nd respondent society at various places across the breadth and length of the State. The main purpose for which the schools are established by the 2nd respondent society is not only to provide the necessary infrastructural facilities in the form of good school buildings, laboratories, libraries, fixtures and furniture, but also to provide good quality instructional facilities and infrastructure. The 2nd respondent society wants to make available good quality instructional facilities to be made available at these schools, so that quality of instructions will be superior to many other comparable educational intuitions. If the 2nd respondent society considers it appropriate to provide for good quality instructional facilities which has direct bearing and nexus with the results sought to be achieved from out of the continuous instructional training which the teachers are required to impart to their wards, it would be impossible to call such a qualification or criteria as an irrelevant qualification or criteria. Imparting good quality education will not only improve the standards of education amongst the taught, but it would help them to withstand the vagaries and vicissitudes while facing the challenges of higher education. The solidity of the foundations of education will afford an element of certainty and strength for the students to face those challenges in later years of life. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention that prescription of a minimum II class in Graduation degree with not less than 55% of marks to be secured by the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes to be an irrational qualification without any relationship or connection with the ultimate object of selecting the best teachers. Similarly, I am also not in a position to comprehend as to how prescription of such a qualification is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a candidate in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or both. If a consistently good academic record is what is sought to be required to be possessed by every candidate, it only enables the 2nd respondent society to pick up the best amongst the most available talent. By choosing the best candidates, the ultimate object of establishing the residential educational institutions by it is sub-served rather than being frustrated. Therefore, a criteria, which will enhance the effectiveness and utility of the institution cannot be construed or considered to be in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to a candidate under Articles 14 and 16. To my mind, the protection available under Articles 14 and 16 is only to those candidates who possess the requisite qualifications to compete on an equal footing with everyone else. Every criteria which prescribes a cut off point is bound to have candidates down below the point of cut off. If the candidates are required to possess a minimum of 55% of marks at the Graduation, obviously, the 2nd respondent institution is looking for a consistently good academic performer to be picked up as a teacher, so that, in its opinion, the students will be properly trained to improve upon their own academic inputs. The contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that weightage ought to be accorded to those candidates, who are likely to cross the upper age limit, is a contention canvassed without any apparent merit in it. Upper age limit has been fixed for the purpose of filtering the applicants. Every job requires certain amount of physical strength and intellectual bearing and consequently, if the employer feels that candidates, who have not yet crossed a particular upper age, alone are suitable for such recruitment, at the same time, it cannot be construed that any added advantage should be accorded to only such candidates, who are likely to cross the upper age limit shortly. Amongst the competing candidates, if a person with far lesser age proves his merit than a candidate, who possesses higher age than him, it is ultimately the relative merit of the candidates which must tilt the balance of selection. Question of considering or reckoning age in the matter of selection, perhaps, will acquire a degree of significance only when it comes to the question of eliminating one out of two. In such situations, it is not uncommon to pick an older person than a younger one. But as it is well known, such choices would seldom arise and even if they arise, they arise only for the elimination at the bottom point and not at places of merit ranking above than that. Therefore, the contention canvassed in this regard also must necessarily fail. That takes us to the last contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the impugned notification is an utter violation of the compulsion thrust by Section 4 of the 1959 Act. There is no material on record for me to feel or come to a conclusion that the 2nd respondent society would have failed to notify the vacancies to the employment exchange concerned. The statute itself makes it clear that the State and every employer of any establishment was required to notify the vacancy compulsorily to the employment exchange concerned. Therefore, if the employment exchange concerned has been notified by the 2nd respondent society, that automatically fulfills the compulsory ingredient supplied by Section 4 of the said Act. The choice of consideration of the candidates, particularly towards public employment, cannot be confined only in favour of those candidates sponsored by the employment exchange. Public employment is liable to be thrown open and all such candidates, who possess the prescribed qualifications are entitled to compete there against along with those candidates sponsored by the employment exchange concerned (see Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam vs. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao[1]) The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that when a candidate has proved his/her merit by securing a I class in Post Graduate degree and also I class pass percentage of marks at B.Ed., which qualifications alone are relevant for recruitment to the post of teacher, the 2nd respondent society should not have confined its scope of selection to candidates with lesser degree of merit, by taking up the candidature of such of those, who pass the Post Graduation, Graduation and B.Ed. qualifications even in II class. This contention is devoid of any merit, for, when the ultimate selection process is undertaken, appropriate criteria for selection would be finalized, whereat, the relative merit of the candidates is bound to be taken into consideration and account. When the selections are sought to be finalized on the basis of viva voce examination, the 2nd respondent society is bound to take into account and consideration the relative marks secured by candidates at the relevant qualifying examinations. In such an event, candidates, who secure higher percentage of marks at the relevant examinations, are bound to receive a more favourable treatment than those who have secured lesser percentage of marks. Therefore, I do not see any justification to entertain this Writ Petition and hence, it is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 17th August 2010 ksld [1] (1996) 6 SCC 216