Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rohan Kumar Malik vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 29 March, 2023
1
OA No. 1799/2021
Item No.71/C-IV
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1799/2021
Reserved on : 24.02.2023
Pronounced on : 29.03.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Roshan Kumar Malik
S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Malik
Aged about 27 years
R/o 07, Bannu Miyan Colony
Anup Nagar, Fazalpur
Rohta Road, Meerut-250001.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Prateek Kumar with Ms. Ruchi Ranjan Rai)
Versus
1. Union of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Through Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block, Central Secretariat
New Delhi-110001.
2. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Secretary
Block No.12, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. Directorate General of Health Services
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Through its Deputy Director General
Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road
New Delhi-110011.
4. Union of India
Ministry of Human Resources Development
Through Secretary
Department of Higher Education
2
OA No. 1799/2021
Item No.71/C-IV
127-C, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-110001.
... Respondents
(By Advocates : Mr. R.K. Sharma for R-1 & 2, Mr. Ranjan
Tyagi for R-3 and Mr. Gyanendra Singh
with Mr. S.K. Tripathi for R-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A) The applicant was a candidate for selection to the post of Assistant Drug Inspector (Medical Devices) Post Category Code No.NR-13118 advertised by the respondents on 05.09.2018. The essential qualification prescribed for this post included "Electrical Engineering" as well as "Electronics or Instrumentation Engineering". The applicant possesses B.Tech. Degree in "Electrical & Electronics Engineering". A Computer Based Examination was conducted on 17.01.2019. The applicant appeared and qualified the same vide result dated 17.05.2019. On 19.07.2019, his name appeared in the First Rejection List for the reason "not fulfilling the Essential Qualification". He submitted a representation in this regard along with a Certificate of Equivalence issued by the concerned Engineering College. The Revised Rejection List was published between 16-20.09.2019 and the applicant's name yet again featured in the said Rejection List. Subsequently, the 3 OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV respondents issued admit cards for the Skills Test to other selected candidates. The applicant filed Writ Petition(C) No. 10973 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the notices were issued in the same. Vide order dated 05.08.2021, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to direct the applicant to approach this Tribunal. It was further directed that the interim order of restraining the respondents from issuing the appointment letters was to be continued.
2. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):
"A. Pass an Order declaring that the Applicant is eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Drug Inspector (Medical Devices) notified by the Respondent No.2 vide Advertisement No. Phase- VI/2018/Selection Posts;
B. Pass an order directing the Respondents to consider the applicant for appointment to the post of Assistant Drug Inspector (Medical Devices);
C. Pass an Order directing the Respondents to conduct and allow the Applicant to participate in the Skill Test notified as per Advertisement No. Phase - VI/2018/Selection Posts notified by the Respondent No.2 in respect of the post of Assistant Drug Inspector (Medical Devices);
D. Pass such other order or further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case."
3. This Tribunal vide order dated 27.08.2021 noted the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, by which the respondents were directed to proceed with the process of 4 OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV selection but not to issue appointment letters. The same interim relief was further extended by this Tribunal.
4. The applicant is now seeking directions from this Tribunal to declare him eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Drug Inspector and to conduct and allow him to participate in the Skills Test notified. It is the contention of the applicant that the Advertisement for the post of Assistant Drug Inspector (Medical Devices) Post Category Code no. NR-13118 prescribes essential qualifications including "Electrical Engineering" or "Electronics" or "Instrumentation Engineering". The applicant, who is in possession of B.Tech. Degree in "Electrical & Electronics Engineering", is at par with the qualification prescribed and should, therefore, be considered as eligible. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Nisha vs. Union of India in WP(C) No. 6100/2012 and in WP(C) No. 10973/2019 (Rohan Kumar Malik vs. Union of India & Ors.) in claiming that the Degree that he possesses is equivalent to those prescribed in the Notice and his candidature should, therefore, be considered as valid.
5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit opposing the O.A. It is submitted that the Staff Selection Commission 5 OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV had published Notice dated 05.09.2018 with closing date of 30.09.2018 for various posts, including the post of Assistant Drug Inspector (Medical Devices). In the essential qualification amongst others, it was also mentioned that the candidate should be in possession of a Bachelor's Degree in "Electrical Engineering" or "Electronics" or "Instrumentation Engineering". The applicant's candidature was rejected on verification of documents as he possessed Bachelor's Degree in "Electrical & Electronics Engineering" which was not the prescribed qualification. In terms of the Recruitment Rules and the Notification, no equivalence has been stated and, therefore, as he did not possess the requisite qualification, his candidature was rightly rejected and he was not called to appear in the Skills Test.
6. Heard Mr. Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R.K. Sharma, Mr. Ranjan Tyagi & Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the respective respondents.
7. The facts are not in dispute. The Selection Commission had published Notice No. Phase-VI on 05.09.2018 seeking applications for various posts including 6 OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV the post of Assistant Drug Inspector (Medical Devices) vide Post Category Code No. NR-13118. In Annexure A-4, the essential/educational qualifications to the said post have been notified, which reads as under:
"Essential Qualifications (EQ) Education: 1) Bachelor's Degree in Technology/ Engineering in Bio-Medical Engineering or Chemical Engineering or Bio-Technology or Mechanical or Electrical Engineering or Electronics or Instrumentation Engineering or Polymer Engineering or Diploma in Bio-Medical Engineering or Chemical Engineering or Bio-Technology or Mechanical or Electrical Engineering or Electronics or Instrumentation Engineering or Polymer Engineering with three years experience in manufacturing or testing or regulation of medical devices or in research or designing."
It is observed from the above that a degree in "Electrical Engineering" or "Electronics" or Instrumentation Engineering"
is also one of the essential qualifications. The applicant has submitted a Degree Certificate (Annexure A-2), which has been issued by the Uttar Pradesh Technical University indicating that the applicant possesses Bachelor of Technology in "Electrical & Electronics Engineering". It has also been mentioned in the Notification that the candidature of the applicants shall be purely provisional at all stages of the recruitment process. The applicant herein, who had applied for the said post under UR category, appeared in the online examination held on 16/18.01.2019 and qualified for the next 7 OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV step of scrutiny. The documents submitted by him were scrutinized in accordance with the essential qualifications prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. On the basis of certificate submitted by him, i.e. Bachelor's of Technology Degree in "Electrical & Electronics Engineering", it was evident that the same was not mentioned in the prescribed essential qualifications. In view of non-possession of requisite essential qualification, the applicant was not short-listed for further stage of recruitment, i.e. Skills Test, etc. It is also observed that in this notification of examination for 36 categories of posts, the Staff Selection Commission had clearly indicated equivalence in 4 posts, i.e. NR-11318, NR-11218, NR-12718 and NR-13318. However, for the rest of the posts including that of Assistant Drug Inspector (Medical Devices), equivalence in qualification was not specified and, therefore, the candidates were considered only on the basis of the notified essential qualifications.
8. The examination has been concluded long time back. However, in terms of the interim order passed, the results have not yet been declared. We have perused the judgments relied upon by the applicant and also referred to during the hearing by the learned counsel for the respondents including the 8 OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad dated 05.12.2018.
9. The basic issue in this O.A. is about the claim of the applicant seeking equivalence of his Degree in "Electrical & Electronics Engineering" with that of the prescribed Bachelor's Degree in "Electrical Engineering" or "Electronics" or "Instrumentation Engineering". It is indeed a well known fact that Bachelor's Degrees in Technology/Engineering are awarded in a number of disciplines. The development in the educational field has also resulted in specialized areas in different disciplines, which constitute the award of a certain degree. These degrees also differ in terms of teaching methodology and also the subject contents, which varies from university to university. The mere word "Electrical" or "Electronics" in any of the Bachelor's Degree does not make all the Bachelor's Degrees in "Electrical Engineering" generally equivalent to each other. In the present Notification, a Bachelor's Degree in "Electrical Engineering" has been prescribed and also a Bachelor's Degree in "Electronics" or "Instrumentation Engineering". Thus, this clearly indicates that specific qualification has been mentioned to meet with the requirement of the respondents for the specific post. The applicant obviously did not possess any of the above 9 OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV mentioned or other degrees specified in the Notification and instead possessed a Bachelor's Degree in "Electrical & Electronics Engineering". No equivalence has been established as mentioned in the Recruitment Rules or in the Notification and in any case, analyzing and arriving at equivalence in educational qualification would be a task to be undertaken by either a committee or expert academicians alone. It is not for the Courts or Tribunals to decide the equivalence in different academic degrees and, thus, the scope of judicial review in such matters is also very limited.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad dated 05.12.2018 held as under:
"22. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre-
suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view 10 OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench."
11. Further, in a recent judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Devender Bhaskar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 7031 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 8670 of 2007) dated 24.11.2021, the reliance has been placed not only on Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), but also on a number of other cases. The Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon these judgments have dismissed the petition before them. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under:
"21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors, (1975) 3 SCC 76, it was held that the question regarding equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications. It was further held that where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.
22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 288, this Court held that it is not for the court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts.
23. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252, this Court held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held thus: 11 OA No. 1799/2021
Item No.71/C-IV "13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority."
24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610, this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognized as such.
25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine."
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments, we find that the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification. His claim for equivalence of his qualification to that of which is prescribed, is not justified. We also do not find any infirmity or illegality in the decision taken by the respondents in rejecting his candidature.
12OA No. 1799/2021 Item No.71/C-IV
13. In view of the above mentioned, we find the O.A. being devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
14. The Interim stay granted also does not survive and the same is accordingly vacated.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Mohd. Jamshed)
Member (J) Member (A)
/jyoti/