Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Coram vs Uoi & Ors Through on 24 July, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NO.2414 OF 2013 New Delhi, this the 25th day of July, 2014 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI SHEKHAR AGARWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AND HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . Ashish Dabas, S/o Sh.V.S.Dabas, R/o. H.No.412, Teen Pana, Balbir Pradhan Wali Gali, Kanjhawala, Delhi . Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M.K.Bharadwaj) Vs. UOI & Ors through 1. The Secretary, DOP&T, North Block, New Delhi 2. Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Shri S.M.Arif) . ORDER RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):
In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:
i) To declare the action of respondents in not allowing the applicant to appear in interview for selection and appointment against various posts required to be filled up as per CGLE-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
To direct the respondents to take interview of applicant and consider him for appointment against appropriate post as per merit in Combined Graduate Level Examination,2012 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
To allow the OA with cost.
Any other orders may also be passed as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the applicants case are as follows: In response to the advertisement (Annexure A-2) issued by respondent-Staff Selection Commission for holding Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as CGLE 2012) for recruitment to different posts for which Graduation from a recognized University is the minimum educational qualification, the applicant made application. The CGLE 2012 comprised of two Tiers of Written Objective Type examination followed by Computer Proficiency Test/Interview/Skill Test, wherever applicable as per the Scheme of Examination. He was issued Admission Certificate (Annexure A-3) to appear in Tier I Examination. Accordingly, he appeared in Tier I Examination. The result of Tier I Examination was declared on 08.08.2012 (Annexure A-5). As the applicant was declared qualified in Tier I Examination, he was issued Admission Certificate to appear in Tier II Examination. He appeared in Tier II Examination and was declared qualified therein as per the result (Annexure A-6) declared by the Staff Selection Commission in October 2012. He was issued Admission Certificate (Annexure A-7) to appear in Computer Proficiency Test scheduled on 11.11.2012 when he was required to produce all original documents to satisfy his eligibility for appointment against the post made part of the selection process of CGLE 2012. On 11.11.2012 the applicant produced all the original certificates including letter dated 01.08.2012(Annexure A-4) issued by the Superintendent (R-III), Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, showing that the applicant had appeared in B.Tech, Semester VIII Bio Tech Examination held in May 2012 and passed the same by securing 0703 out of 1000 marks, before the concerned officers of Staff Selection Commission. After verifying the said documents, the officers of the Staff Selection Commission allowed the applicant to appear in the Computer Proficiency Test. As the applicant duly qualified in the Computer Proficiency Test, he was issued call letter dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure A-1) to appear at the interview scheduled on 22.12.2012. On 22.12.2012 the applicant reported at the interview centre at 8.00 A.M. While waiting for his turn to appear before the interview board, the applicant was called upon to produce the original documents for verification. The concerned officers of the Staff Selection Commission, on verification of the original documents submitted by the applicant, pointed out that the applicant had not completed his Graduation before 01.08.2012 as the final year result was declared on 7.8.2012. It is contended by the applicant that due to delay in declaration of the result of the final year examination by the University, the applicant should not suffer for no fault on his part, more so when the University, in its letter dated 1.8.2012, informed the Staff Selection Commission that the applicant had appeared in B.Tech VIII Semester Bio Tech Examination held in May 2012 and had passed by the same by securing 703 out of 1000 marks. As his representation requesting the Staff Selection Commission went unheeded, the applicant filed the present Original Application.
3. Opposing the Original Application, the respondents have filed a counter reply. It is stated by the respondents that the closing date for receipt of applications was 20.4.2012. As per the notice of the examination, the applicants should have possessed the essential qualification as on 01.08.2012. The applicant acquired degree qualification, i.e., B.Tech (Bio Technology) on 7.8.2012. The letter dated 01.08.2012 issued by the Superintendent (R-III), Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, states that the result was not finally declared. It is thus clear that he was not a Graduate as on 01.08.2012. The applicant had given declaration in sub-para (iii) of Column 22 of the application that he fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility regarding educational qualification, age, etc., prescribed for admission to the examination, without possessing the requisite qualification as on the cut off date, i.e., 1.8.2012. On the basis of his performance in Tiers I and II Examinations and Computer Proficiency Test, the applicant was called to appear for interview on 22.11.2012. On 22.11.2012 during verification of documents, it was found that he did not possess the requisite educational qualification as on 01.08.2012 and therefore, he was not allowed to appear for interview. The provisions contained in the Notice of Examination are sacrosanct and are binding on the candidates and the Commission. Notes III and IV Under-6 Essential Qualification as on 1st August 2012 of the Notice state that All the applicants must possess the Requisite Educational Qualification on the above mentioned cut-off date. As per Note below Sub-para A of Para 1 of the Notice of Examination, the candidature of the applicant was cancelled by the Commission for his having not possessed a Graduation qualification from a recognized University on or before 01.08.2012. As per the undertaking given by the applicant on 22.12.2012 that he shall abide by any decision of the Commission regarding his candidature in the event he is found not fulfilling the eligibility condition for the post, the decision of the Commission is binding on him and he cannot be said to have any grievance.
4. In the rejoinder reply, the applicant has refuted the stand taken by the respondents. It is asserted by the applicant that as the University declared and issued the Result-cum-Detailed Marks Card on 7.8.2012, i.e., much before the date of interview, which was scheduled on 22.12.2012, the applicant ought to have been allowed to appear for interview.
5. We have perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant had appeared in the final year papers of B.Tech (Bio Tech) in the months of May and June 2012 and the concerned University declared the result thereof provisionally on 1.8.2012 and finally on 7.8.2012 and that on the basis of such declaration of the result by the University on provisional basis on 1.8.2012 and there being no change in the final result declared by the University on 7.8.2012, the applicant ought to have been treated as having possessed the Graduation qualification as on 1.8.2012. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that a number of Universities had declared the final result by 1.8.2012 whereas the Maharishi Dayanand University delayed in declaring the final result and that for such delay in publication of the final result, the applicant should not suffer. It is also submitted that as the final result was declared on 7.8.2012 and the applicant possessed the Graduation qualification by 7.8.2012, i.e., the date much before the date of interview which was scheduled on 22.12.2012, the respondent-Staff Selection Commission should have allowed the applicant to appear for interview and consider him for selection on the basis of his performances. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Deepika Chaudhary vs. University of Delhi & ors, 64(1996) DLT 503; Utkarsh Sharma vs. UOI and others, W.P. ( C ) No. 7214/2010, decided on 18.10.2010; and Dr.Chandra Lekha vs. State of J&K and others, AIR 1997 JK 59.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that from the certificates produced by the applicant it was found that the result of the final year B.Tech (Bio Tech) was declared only on 7.8.2012 and therefore, the applicants claim that he possessed the Graduation qualification as on 1.8.2012 is baseless. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per the provisions contained in the Notice of Examination, the applicant was ineligible to make application and appear in the examination and that his appearing and qualifying in Tiers I & II Examinations and Computer Proficiency Test will not entitle him to appear for interview and, therefore, the Commission rightly disallowed him to appear for interview because of his having not possessed the essential qualification of Graduation as on 1.8.2012.
8. In Deepika Chaudharys case (supra), the Honble High Court of Delhi, in paragraph 16 of the judgment, held thus:
16. The petitioner was duly successful in the admission test and was admitted for the course and part of the fee was accepted from her. The only ground of her rejection at a subsequent stage is that she failed to furnish her result/mark-sheet for M.A.(Pol.Science) Examination. The said result was obviously not declared by the University of Delhi over which the petitioner exercised no control. Therefore, it was not on account of her lapse that the necessary result could not be communicated within the stipulated period. In this background, respondents 4 and 5 should have permitted the petitioner to continue her course and not maintained a strict posture in following the prescribed qualification fixing the last date as 14th August 1996 in a rigid manner. The University has to consider the welfare of the student and the impact of cancellation or non-compliance of one of the conditions for admissions, when fees have already been paid and no fault could be attributed to the petitioner. Surely, this discretion can be easily exercised by even the statutory body which is empowered to consider each case on its own merits. The provision has to be benevolently interpreted and reasonably administered. This will not in any manner amount to disrespect and discredit to the Academic Council.
9. The same view was taken by the Honble High Court in Utkarsh Sharmas case (supra).
10. In Dr.Chander Lekhas case (supra), Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission issued Notification dated 22.7.1992 inviting application from eligible candidates for some posts of B-Grade Specialists in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. The last date for receipt of application forms was 31.8.1992. One of the basic eligibility criteria for applying was the possession of Masters Degree in Obstetrics & Gynaecology by the candidates before the last date fixed for the receipt of applications. The petitioner, in pursuance to the said Advertisement notification admittedly submitted her application before 31.8.1992, saying that she was possessing the qualification of M.D. but that her Degree certificate would be submitted later. Since she could not submit the Masters Degree certificate in time and because the Commission would not consider her case appropriately, she filed writ petition and by virtue of interim order she was allowed to appear in the interview and her result of the interview was made subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The Honble Court, in para 13 of the judgment, held thus:
Here is a person, who says that she appeared in the examination along with 11 other candidates in Sept.1989 and whereas the result of all such candidates was declared in Oct.1989, her result was not declared for as long as three and a half years thereafter. It was declared only after she had filed a writ petition in this Court (SSWP No.1/1993). Yes, it is open to the University to come and tell this Court as to why her result was not declared till 23.3.1993. Yes, again it is open to the University to come and tell the Court that the declaration of the result for three and a half years was delayed because of some fault on the part of the petitioner or because of non-fulfillment or non-observance of some formalities or requirement sby her. The University would be well within its right to come and tell the Court that it could not declare the result for three and a half years because either the petitioner did not co-operate or she was not eligible or that she lacked on some ground or the other academic, technical or otherwise. On said stands being taken by the University, this Court surely could have found out if the petitioner was at fault, she could not at all considered to have been in possession of the qualification at any point of time before actual date of the result. Undoubtedly, in normal course, a person is deemed to be possessed of an academic qualification only from the date of the declaration of the result. In normal circumstances, no one can be said to possess of an academic qualification unless her result is declared and the event takes place as from the date of declaration of the result. But there has to be an exception to this general rule because in a given case, where the University does not declare the result of a candidate, when it has declared the result of all other candidates similarly placed. If a person appears in an examination along with a number of other candidates, she is entitled that her result is declared along with all such candidates, as and when the event takes place. The withholding of the result is permissible only on some ground. It is not open for the University not to declare the result at all of such a candidate, when the result of other candidates, who had appeared with her is declared and without assigning any reason whatsoever, or without there being any existence of any ground for such non-declaration. If candidates, who appeared along with the petitioner in Sept. 1989 get all the benefits consequent upon declaration of the result in October 1989, the petitioner cannot be deprived of that benefit for as long as three and a half years, and that too without any fault on her part.
11. The facts and circumstances of the case at hand are entirely different from that of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. Both in Deepika Chaudharys case and Utkarsh Sharmas case, cited supra, the petitioners, who were admitted to educational institutions for prosecuting higher studies, were asked to produce the certificates of the qualifying examinations. In Dr.Chandra Lekhas case (supra), the declaration of her result was delayed by the University for three and a half years although the results of the candidates who had appeared in the examination, along with the applicant, were declared in October 1989. It was held by the Honble Court that though the result of the petitioner was declared in 1993, yet she should not be deprived of the benefit of the result for as long as three and a half years. On this finding, the Honble Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. In the instant case, the applicant has to fulfill the eligibility criterion of his possessing the minimum educational qualification of Graduation by the prescribed cut-off date, i.e., 1.8.2012. The concerned University declared the result of the applicant along with others on 7.8.2012 and therefore, he could be held to have possessed the Graduation qualification only with effect from that date. Thus, the ratio of the said decisions is not applicable to the instant case.
12. Paragraph 6 of the Notice of CGLE 2012 reads thus:
ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS as on 1st August, 2012.
i) Compiler: Bachelors Degree with Economics or Statistics or Mathematics as compulsory or Elective subject from any recognized University.
ii) Statistical Investigator Grade II Bachelors Degree with Statistics as one of the main subjects.
OR Bachelors Degree with Mathematics (with Statistics as a paper studied in one year/two years/all three years as the case may be) as one of the main subjects.
OR Bachelors Degree with Economics (with Statistics as a paper studied in one year/two years/all the three years as the case may be) as one of the main subjects.
OR Bachelors Degree with Commerce (with Statistics as a paper studied in one year/two years/all the three years as the case may be) as one of the main subjects.
iii) All other posts: Bachelors Degree (Graduation Degree) from a recognized university or equivalent.
Note I: For posts of Assistants (CSS),computer proficiency has also been prescribed as an Essential Qualification.
Note II: As per Ministry of Human Resource Development Notification No.44 dated 01.02.1995 published in Gazette of India edition dated 08.04.1995, the Degree obtained through open Universities/Distance Education Mode needs to be recognized by Distance Education Council, IGNOU. Accordingly, unless such Degrees had been recognized for the period when the candidates acquired the relevant qualification, they will not be accepted for the purpose of Educational Qualification.
Note III: Candidates who do not have the educational qualification as on the closing date of receipt of application (20.4.2912) but are appearing/intend to appear in the final examinations may also apply. However, they should acquire the prescribed qualification on or before 01.08.2012, failing which their candidature will be cancelled.
Note IV: All candidates who are declared qualified by the Commission for appearing at the Interview/Skill Test/Computer Proficiency Test will be required to produce the relevant Certificate in Original such as Mark sheets for all the three years of Graduation/Provisional Certificate/Certificate of Graduation as proof of having acquired the minimum educational qualification on or before the 1st August, 2012, failing which the candidature of such candidates will be cancelled by the Commission.
Note V: Wherever Desirable Qualification is prescribed in Recruitment Rules, appropriate weightage will be given at the time of interview.
13. The letter dated 1.8.2012 issued by the Superintendent (R-III), Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, reads thus:
MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK No.R-III/IV III/8619 Dated 1.8.12 To The Director (NR), SSC Lodhi Road CGO Complex, New Delhi.
Sub: Confidential Result-Roll No.1137513170 Sir/Madam, Student Namely Ashish Dabas s/o Sh.V.S.Dabas (V.S.Dabas) has appeared in his B.Tech VIII Semester Bio Tech examination held in May 12 under Roll NO. 1137513170 and passed the same by securing 0703 Marks out of 1000. This result has not so far been finally declared and may be treated as provisional. In case the result changes due to removal of any discrepancy the University will not be responsible for the same.
Yours faithfully, Sd/Illegible 1.8.12.
Superintendent (R-III)
14. On the basis of the above confidential result, purportedly communicated by the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, on 1.8.2012, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the respondent-Staff Selection Commission should have treated the applicant as having possessed the Graduation qualification as on the cut-off date, i.e., 1.8.2012, inasmuch as the University declared the result of the applicant on provisional basis on 1.8.2012. After going through the said letter dated 1.8.2012, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant for the following reasons.
(i) It is common knowledge that result of examination is never published confidentially by any University;
(ii) The reason for publishing the result of the applicant confidentially is not discernible from the said letter as to why an officer of the University rose to the occasion of issuing such a letter to the officer of the Staff Selection Commission in respect of the applicant;
No material has been brought on record by the applicant that Superintendent (R-III) of the University is an officer authorized for the purpose of issuing such letter.
The said letter dated 1.8.2012 is also not to be treated as a provisional certificate issued by the concerned University when it has been specifically mentioned therein that the the result has not so far been finally declared. In view of this, the respondent-Staff Selection Commission has rightly not accepted the said letter dated 1.8.2012 as provisional certificate.
15. The applicant has also filed a provisional certificate purportedly issued by the Deputy Registrar, Career Institute of Tech. & Management, Faridabad, on 1.8.2012 (Annexure A-4) in support of his case that he had possessed the Graduation qualification as on 1.8.2012. The said provisional certificate dated 1.8.2012 reads thus:
PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Mr.Ashish Dabas S/o Sh.V.S.Dabas a student of B.Tech Bio-Technology Engg. at this college, passed the four year degree course in this branch in May-2012 from this Institute affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak by obtaining 5504 Marks out of 8750 and secured 1st Division.
His medium of instruction has been English.
He bears a good moral character and I wish him all success in life.
Sd/ Deputy Registrar Career Institute of Tech. & Management, Faridabad
16. The above provisional certificate was purportedly issued on 1.8.2012 by the college wherefrom the applicant had appeared in the B.Tech (Bio Technology Engineering). It is not discernible from the said provisional certificate as to when the result of the examination was declared by the University and as to on what basis the said college issued the purported provisional certificate. Moreover, provisional certificate is issued by the concerned University and not by the College where a student studies inasmuch as the examination is conducted by the University and result thereof is published also by the University.
17. The result-cum-detailed marks card of 8th Semester of B.Tech.(Bio Technology Engineering) issued by the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, in favour of the applicant (at page 100 of the O.A.) clearly shows that the result was declared on 7.8.2012. The said result-cum-detailed marks card of 8th Semester of B.Tech (Bio Technology Engineering) was issued on 7 .8.2012 under the signature of the Controller of Examinations of the University. Thus, the applicant could be said to have possessed the Graduation qualification only with effect from 7.8.2012 and not from 1.8.2012 when, according to the University and the college where the applicant was studying, the final result was not declared. The respondent-Staff Selection Commission thus rightly held that the applicant did not fulfill the eligibility criterion of possessing Graduation qualification as on the prescribed cut-off date, i.e., 1.8.2012 and was, therefore, not entitled to appear for interview.
18. In Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another vs. Uma Shankar Sharma, etc., W.P.(C) Nos.834/13 & 914/2013, decided on 13.5.2013, an advertisement was issued by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board on November 07, 2009 inviting applications from eligible candidates to be appointed as Teachers under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi. The appointment was for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) in various disciplines, such as, English, Hindi, Maths, Natural Science, Social Studies, Sanskrit, Punjabi and Urdu. The advertisement specified the number of posts in each discipline. It was indicated in the advertisement that the last date for receipt of the applications would be March 15, 2010. It was specifically notified that eligibility would be determined with respect to said date i.e. March 15, 2010. The essential educational qualification to be possessed by the candidates was indicated to be March 15, 2010. The user department i.e. the Government of NCT Delhi found that there was an error in the number of vacant posts notified to be filled up and sent a correct number to the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, resulting in the Board issuing an addendum to the notification inviting applications, dated November 07, 2009, indicating therein that the vacancies would be as indicated in the corrigendum. The last date for receiving applications was extended to March 25, 2010. No other term or condition of the notification dated November 07, 2009 was changed, and hence it was obvious that the prescribed cut off date by which eligibility had to be acquired continued to be March 15, 2010. The respondents of the two writ petitions who were desirous of seeking appointment as TGT (Natural Science) and TGT (English) were not qualified by the prescribed cut off date. Respondent-Uma Shankar Sharma had taken the final year B.Ed. examination conducted by the University of Jammu and the result was declared on March 22, 2010. As regards respondent-Priyanka, she too had taken the B.Ed. examination conducted by the University of Jammu and even her result was declared on March 22, 2010. The degree B.Ed. was an essential qualification. Being held not qualified to be appointed as TGT in the respective disciplines, both approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and placed reliance upon a decision of the Tribunal dated March 30, 2012 in an original application filed by one Preeti Balyan and others, wherein as a result of a corrigendum issued to an advertisement, the Tribunal had directed shifting of the last date for acquiring eligibility to the extended date by which applications could be received. Vide impugned decision dated September 03, 2012, claim by respondents -Uma Shankar Sharma and Priyanka had succeeded before the Tribunal solely on the basis its decision in Preeti Balyan's case. The decision in Preeti Balyan's case was set aside by a Division Bench of the Honble High Court on February 06, 2013 when W.P.(C) No.3397/2012 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. Vs. Preeti Balyan & Ors. was decided. Allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal, the Honble High Court of Delhi held as follows:
11. Suffice would it be to state that the consistent view taken by Courts is that if a date is prescribed in an advertisement as the last date by which a qualification has to be obtained, the date being sacrosanct, has to be respected and we may note the reason for the view by reproducing paragraph 10 from the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168 Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. which reads as under:
"10. The 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 advertisement/notification 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, 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 A.P.Public Service Commission, Hyderabad Vs. B.Sarat Chandra and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfar Residential School Society, Vizianagaram Vs. M.Tripura Sundari Devi."
12. For the reasons recorded by the Division Bench of this Court overruling the view taken by the Tribunal in Preeti Balyan's case and for the law declared by the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi's case (supra) the impugned decision has to be set aside; additionally for the reason that it was for the Staff Selection Board to have notified the last date by which eligibility had to be acquired. Further, the advertisement inviting applications gave a wrong figure pertaining to the vacancies notified to be filled up and the corrigendum simply corrected by disclosing to the candidates the exact number of vacancies proposed to be filled up. An error of notifying the number of vacancies being corrective, it had not to be treated that the original advertisement inviting applications stood superseded. There is no law that eligibility has to be always as of the last date by which applications would be received. The date of eligibility has to be clearly spelt out and the same could be any date as per the advertisement inviting applications. The ratio decidendi enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors., 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, and the Honble High Court of Delhi in Uma Shankar Sharmas case (supra), applies on all fours to the present case. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant having acquired Graduation qualification on 7.8.2012, i.e., much before the date of interview, i.e., 22.12.2012, the respondent-Staff Selection should not have disallowed him to appear for interview, is untenable.
19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the decisions in Rekha Chaturvedis case (supra) and Uma Shankar Sharmas case (supra), we hold that the respondent-Staff Selection Commission was justified in disallowing the applicant to appear for interview as he did not possess the minimum educational qualification of Graduation as on 1.8.2012 and that the Original Application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SHEKHAR AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN