Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ali Raja vs M/O Home Affairs on 16 October, 2025
1
Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1018/2018
Order reserved on 26.09. 2025
Order pronounced on 16.10.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Ali Raza S/o Sh. Zihanat Husain aged about 32
years R/o B-66/1, Street No. 5 New Govindpura
Delhi-11 0051
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Setu Niket with Ms. Muskan
Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs
Through Secretary-Home North Block Cabinet
Secretariat New Dclhi-110001
2. Union Public Service Commission Through
Chairman Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi - 110069
3. Directorate of Forensic Science Services
Through Director cum Chief Forensic Scientist
Block 9 8th Floor COO Complex Lodhi Road
New Delhi-11 0003
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. R V Sinha with Mr. A S Singh
and Ms. Shriya Sharma ,Mr. Subhash Gosain)
2
Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief:-
"a) Issue a direction thereby directing the Respondents to accept the application of the applicant (roll No. 18) in Vacancy No.16101904222 of advertisement no. 19/2016 for the position of Scientist 'B' Documents and permit the applicant to participate in the recruitment process;
b) Issue a direction thereby directing the Respondents accept the application of the Applicant for Vacancy No. 16101904222 of advertisement no. 19/2016 for the position of Scientist 'B' Documents for the applicant to participate in the interview on 08-03-2018 or 09- 03-2018;
c) Pass any other of further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:-
2.1 The applicant graduated in B.Sc. (Chemistry) from Zakir Hussain College, University of Delhi in the year 2007. Thereafter, he pursued and completed his M.Sc. (Forensic Science) from LNJN NICFS, Delhi (Government of India) in 2009, with 3 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 dissertation in Questioned Documents from GEQD, Hyderabad.
2.2 In the year 2009-2010, the applicant was engaged with the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, on a contractual post of Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner (Documents), where he worked on around 150 cases as a Questioned Document Expert.
2.3 The applicant thereafter qualified UGC-NET for Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and was enrolled with the Department of Chemistry, University of Delhi. He served as:
JRF from 19.01.2010 to 18.01.2012; and SRF from 19.01.2012 to 17.03.2014.
2.4 The applicant submitted his thesis in May 2014, which was duly approved by the Department.
He was awarded the degree of Ph.D. (Chemistry) in March 2015, titled "Material Synthesis for Forensic Ink Dyes & Explosives Analysis". The applicant has also published research work in international 4 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 journals of repute, being amongst the most cited works in the field.
2.5 The applicant is currently employed as Associate Professor with Arba Minch University, Ethiopia.
2.6 The Respondent No. 2 - UPSC - issued the impugned Notification No. 19/2016 (Vacancy No. 16101904222) inviting applications for the post of Scientist 'B' (Documents) in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Forensic Science Services. The criteria at Sl. No. 4 of the advertisement provided as follows:
"Five Scientists 'B' (Documents) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Forensic Science Services (OBC-01 & UR-04). Of the five posts, one post is reserved for Physically Challenged Persons with disability viz. Orthopaedically Handicapped/Locomotor Disability/Cerebral Palsy with One Leg Affected (Right or Left) (OL). The posts are also suitable for Physically Challenged Persons with disability viz. Orthopaedically Handicapped/Locomotor Disability/Cerebral Palsy with One Leg Affected (Right or Left) (OL) OR Hearing Impairment {Partially Deaf (PD)}. The posts are permanent. Pay Scale: Rs. 15,600-39,100 (PB-3) + Rs. 5,400 (Grade Pay) {As per 7th CPC:- Level-10 in the Pay Matrix.} (T.E. Rs. 47,250/- Approx.) + TA and HRA as admissible. General Central Service, Group 'A', Gazetted, Non- Ministerial. Age*: 35 years.
Qualifications - Essential: (A) Master's Degree in Chemistry/ AIC by examination/ Physics/ Forensic Science with Chemistry or Physics as one of the 5 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 subjects at Bachelor of Science level from a recognized University. (B) Three years' experience of analytical methods and research therein in the field of Documents in any Central/State Government organization or recognized research institute or Forensic Science Laboratory.
Desirable: Experience of working in a Forensic Science Laboratory.
Duties: Crime Scene Management, Crime Case Examination, expert testimony under Cr.P.C. & Indian Evidence Act/IT Act, R&D in Forensic Sciences, imparting training, etc. HQ: New Delhi with laboratories at Kolkata, Chandigarh, Hyderabad, Bhopal, Guwahati & Pune. Officer may be required to serve in any part of India."
2.7 The applicant, being fully eligible, applied online. His candidature was initially accepted and Roll No. 18 was allotted by UPSC. However, by communication dated 22.11.2017, his candidature was rejected on the ground that "experience certificate not attached for JRF and SRF". 2.8 Learned counsel for the applicant stated that, unlike other candidates who were issued letters granting time to rectify deficiencies, no such opportunity was given to the applicant. On learning of the rejection, the applicant made a representation dated 01.12.2017 through e-mail, hand delivery, and speed post, enclosing the experience certificate for JRF and SRF issued by Delhi University. 6 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 2.9 In response, UPSC issued communication dated 04.01.2018 (impugned rejection order), wherein it was stated that although the experience certificate for JRF and SRF was attached, the same did not contain the nature of duties/research work, and hence the application was treated as "Incomplete Application".
2.10 The applicant thereafter submitted a second representation dated 19.02.2018, enclosing once again the experience certificate and Ph.D. degree, requesting that his candidature be considered. 2.11 However, without deciding the applicant's representation, UPSC proceeded to issue the interview list dated 08.03.2018 and 09.03.2018 for the said post, excluding the applicant. 2.12 Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Union Public Service Comission and Ors. Vs. Saumya Pandey and Ors. (Manu/DE/1716/2020) by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relevant para of the same reads as under:-
7
Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 "39. It is nobody's case that all the dates can be left open and candidates can submit the EWS certificates or other certificates as and when they wish.
Throughout the case, stand of UPSC and Union of India is that, all the dates fixed stipulated in the subject notification, including that of 1st August, 2019 are sacrosanct, so the EWS certificates ought to have been obtained before this date. On the other hand, the petitioners who are not covered in the CAT's order of extending the date of 16thAugust, 2019 for submission of EWS certificates, have pleaded their case through Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Advocate and other learned counsel to the effect that since the scrutiny of all the certificates and documents has to take place after declaration of final results of the written examinations, therefore, the candidates should be given opportunity to submit their EWS (Income and Assets) Certificate till that time. It has been also vehemently argued on behalf of this group of candidates that even at the scrutiny stage, the UPSC is permitting successful candidates to rectify the mistakes in their certificates by submitting fresh certificates; and therefore, no prejudice would be caused if the candidates who had failed to upload their certificates alongwith DAF-1 form, are given a further opportunity to submit their certificates till that stage. Learned counsel appearing for UPSC has submitted that at the final stage after declaration of results of the final written examination, the candidates are given opportunity to rectify the mistakes in their documents, which are found to be non-compliant in terms of format during scrutiny, but the stage of filing of the documents cannot be extended to the said date as it will cause disarray and disturb the entire schedule of the conduct of CSE Examination,2019. It has been specifically pleaded that none of the candidates has been given the concession of submitting their EWS certificate for the first time at the scrutiny stage and only the opportunity has been given to candidates to formally correct mistakes in their certificates already submitted, and in terms of the said concession, the same opportunity has been extended to the two candidates as mentioned hereinabove since the UPSC has taken a sympathetic view of the situation where certificates in the wrong format were submitted at DAF-1 stage but certificates in correct format were submitted after 16th August, 2019. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Advocate has argued that the financial status of a person in a financial year will remain same and any change in 8 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 the date of issuing of the said certificates and late submission of the said certificates will not change the financial status of the candidate. The delay in their submission, was caused due to the administrative difficulties faced by the certificate issuing authorities and the said certificates could not be issued in time, so the opportunity to submit the same as one-time option may be granted to all the candidates. This plea has been again strongly opposed by the learned ASG and the counsel appearing for UPSC." 2.13 Learned counsel for the applicant further drew our attention to the Order dated 07.03.2018 and 23.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal in the present OA, which reads as under:-
"Order dated 07.03.2018 The applicant applied for the post of Scientist 'B' Documents in response to advertisement inviting applications by the Union Public Service Commission. His application has been rejected on the ground that his experience certificate did not contain the nature of duties/research work so it was treated as incomplete application. The applicant has referred to condition no. 6(A)(h)(vi) which inter alia provides that the 'Candidates are not required to submit to the Commission either by post or by hand the printouts of their online applications or any other document. They will be required to bring along with them the printouts of their online applications and the documents mentioned in para 7 below if called for interview.' It is stated that the applicant has a right to produce these documents at the time of interview as well. To the contrary, Mr. RV Sinha, learned counsel, who appeared on advance notice, has referred to condition no. 6(A)(ii)(d) of the same clause wherein it is prescribed that Candidates should mention the entire experience claimed in the prescribed performa. It is accordingly argued that since the applicant did not comply with this condition, his application has been treated as incomplete and accordingly, it is submitted that it has been rightly rejected.
The aforesaid two conditions have to be analysed in the right perspective.9
Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 At this stage, it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity to the respondents to file the reply. In any case, the interviews are scheduled to be held on 08.03.2018 and 09.03.2018. The applicant otherwise possesses all qualifications, though the experience certificate submitted did not contain some of the descriptions.
Be that as it may, Notice. Mr. Subhash Gosai and Mr. RV Sinha, learned counsel, accept notice for respondent no.1 & 3 and 2 respectively. Counter be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
In the meantime, we direct the respondent no.2 to allow the applicant to participate in the interview scheduled to be held on 08.03.2018 and 09.03.2018 or any other date as may be fixed by the respondents. Such participation in the interview shall be provisional and will not confer any right or equity in favour of the applicant. It is further directed that the result of the applicant shall not be declared.
List on 25.05.2018.
Order dasti'.
Order dated 23.03.2023:-
The applicant was an aspirant for the post of Scientist Grade 'B' (Documents) in the Directorate of Forensic Sciences. His application in response to the vacancy notice was not accepted. He has placed a challenge to the same in the present OA. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the order passed on the first date of hearing in this matter when the notice was issued i.e. 07.03.2018. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, by way of an interim order, a direction was issued to R-2 which is the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to allow the applicant to participate in the interview, however, such participation shall be provisional and not confer any right or equity in favour of the applicant.
Learned counsel submits that it may be appropriate to direct R-2 to produce the result of the said interview before proceeding further in the matter as the issue at stake in the OA which is the eligibility of the applicant for the post of Scientist Grade 'B', should be considered and adjudicated upon only if 10 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 the applicant is found to have been successful in the interview.
Learned counsel for R-2 submits that while the respondents are agreeable to produce the result/outcome of the interview with respect to the applicant in a confidential cover before this Tribunal, they are doing it with some noteworthy reservations. He submits that the issue to be decided is the eligibility of the applicant and not whether he has been successful in the interview or not. He is apprehensive that it may become a precedent that the applicants by way of interim direction appeared in the selection and thereafter, despite not passing the eligibility tried to establish their claim on the basis of result of the interview.
Accordingly, he submits that while the Tribunal may peruse the result/outcome of the interview, the issue should also be seriously considered and decided on its merits.
While we have recorded the contentions of the respective counsel. We note that R-2 produce the result of the interview for the post of Scientist Grade 'B' with respect to the applicant in a confidential cover.
We shall take into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents after perusing the results and respective outcome of the result and decide whether merits of the issue needs to be gone into or not.
List on 18.04.2023."
2.14 Being aggrieved by the arbitrary rejection of his candidature despite being fully eligible and despite submitting all necessary documents, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 11 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018
3. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted as under:-
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of any merit and deserves outright dismissal. The applicant has neither shown violation of any statutory rule nor infringement of any enforceable right.
3.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that Union Public Service Commission, is a constitutional body constituted under Articles 315 to 323 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 320, the Commission is entrusted with the duty of conducting recruitment to civil services and posts.
In discharge of this duty, UPSC is empowered to devise fair and objective procedures, including shortlisting criteria, whenever the number of applications is disproportionately large. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 302 has 12 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 upheld this power of reasonable classification and shortlisting.
3.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has impleaded the Chairman of UPSC as a party respondent. This is impermissible. The law is well settled that the Commission can only sue or be sued through its Secretary. The Kolkata Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in CPC(C) No.121/2006 in O.A. No.86/2005 (All India Income Tax SC/ST Employees' Welfare Association) has so held. The Lucknow Bench in Contempt Petition No.29 of 2010 in O.A. No.45/2005 filed by S.C. Shukla, and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CCP No.642/2014, W.P.(C) 3862/2014 (Arvind Kumar v. Rajni Razdan & Anr.), have also discharged the Chairman from the array of parties. On this ground itself, the O.A. is not maintainable.
3.4 Coming to the merits, learned counsel, submitted the post in question is Scientist "B" (Documents) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory under the Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs. Five vacancies were 13 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 advertised vide Commission's Advertisement No.19/2016, Item No.4, Vacancy No.16101904222 (Annexure R-2/3). Out of five vacancies, one was reserved for OBC and four were unreserved. One post was further reserved for physically handicapped candidates with Orthopaedically Handicapped/Locomotor Disability/Cerebral Palsy - One Leg Affected (R or L). The post carried Grade Pay of ₹5400/- in PB-3 (₹15600-39100 pre-revised). 3.5 The Recruitment Rules prescribed as under:
Master's Degree in Chemistry or AIC by examination or Physics or Forensic Science with Chemistry/Physics as one of the subjects at Bachelor's level; and Three years' experience of analytical methods and research therein in the field of Documents in any Central or State Government organisation or recognised research institute or forensic science laboratory.
Desirable qualification was experience of working in a forensic science laboratory.14
Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 3.6 Adding to the submissions, learned counsel stated that in response to the advertisement, 590 online applications were received. Shortlisting was done strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, i.e. EQ(A) plus EQ(B). Twenty-nine candidates (24 UR and 5 OBC) were shortlisted for interview. The rest were rejected under categories like "Better Candidates Available," "LEQ(B) -
Lacking essential experience," and "Incomplete Application."
3.7 The applicant, Shri Ali Raza, Roll No.18/Gen., also applied. His application, however, was rejected as "Incomplete Application" because his experience certificates for JRF and SRF did not mention the nature of duties/research work in the field of documents. They contained only a vague reference to "forensic analysis of inks, dyes and samples." This does not satisfy the Recruitment Rules, which required specific experience of analytical methods and research in documents.
3.8 Clause 6(A) and 6(B) of the advertisement mandated that candidates must upload experience 15 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 certificates in a single PDF file and that such certificates must mention the nature of duties performed and the duration. Clause 6(B) further warned that shortlisting would be strictly on the basis of information provided in the online applications. In other words, if the certificate did not contain requisite details, the application would be rejected.
3.9 Further it is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Dr. Ananda Moy Ghosh v. Union of India (W.P.C.T. 49/2012, decided on 28.11.2014), has emphasized that a process of selection must be absolutely transparent, with no deviation from the terms of advertisement. A deviation for one candidate would cause gross injustice to others. Applying this principle, the applicant's incomplete application was rightly rejected.
3.10 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant thereafter made a representation dated 01.12.2017, which was duly examined and rejected. This rejection was communicated to him by 16 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 Commission's letter dated 04.01.2018. He again made a representation dated 19.02.2018 enclosing another experience certificate dated 04.01.2018. That certificate too only mentioned "forensic analysis of inks, dyes and samples," which does not meet the essential requirement of experience in documents. Accordingly, his representation was again rejected.
3.11 Learned counsel emphasized that Applications of all other candidates who failed to provide certificates clearly mentioning duties were also rejected. There has been no arbitrariness or discrimination.
3.12 Interviews were conducted from 08.03.2018 to 09.03.2018. Recommendations in respect of three candidates have been issued to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The result of one candidate has been kept in sealed cover. The recruitment for the PH category became infructuous at the scrutiny stage. In pursuance of this Tribunal's order dated 07.03.2018, the applicant was provisionally interviewed on 09.03.2018, but his result has been 17 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 kept in sealed cover and has not been declared. This demonstrates that the Commission has scrupulously complied with the directions of this Tribunal.
3.13 Adding further to the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the grievance of the applicant is nothing but a plea for relaxation of the essential requirement of experience, which is impermissible. Courts and Tribunals in judicial review cannot substitute their views for that of expert bodies unless the process is vitiated by arbitrariness or malafides. Reliance is placed on Union of India v. A.K. Narula (2007) 11 SCC 10, Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006) 10 SCC 337, and UPSC v.
Jagannath Mishra (2003) 9 SCC 237. None of these infirmities are present here.
3.14 Learned counsel further stated that while it is true that some candidates were provisionally called to produce ancillary documents such as caste certificates or affidavits regarding name changes, however, that cannot be compared with essential 18 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 experience, which is the core qualification. Experience certificates cannot be supplemented or rectified after the last date. Thus, the applicant could not be extended any further indulgence. 3.15 In these circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Original Application is wholly misconceived. The rejection of the applicant's candidature as "Incomplete Application" is strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, advertisement conditions and settled judicial principles. Both his representations dated 01.12.2017 and 19.02.2018 were duly examined and rejected with reasons. There is neither arbitrariness nor discrimination. 3.16 In support of respondents' case, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the following case laws:-
(i) Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan & Ors", reported as (2011) 12 SCC 85
(ii) State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. G. Hemalathaa & Anr", reported as 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1113 19 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018
(iii) Dr. M. Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission", reported as 2006 (3) СТС 449
(iv) Dr. Anandamoy Ghosh Vs UOI & Ors", reported as 2014 SCC OnLine Cal 21543
(v) State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Madhu Kant Ranjan", reported as 2021 SCC OnLine 1262
(vi) Union of India Vs Mahender Singh", reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 909
(vii) Order/judgement dated 21.12.2022 of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.2616/2021 titled "Selvavinodhini V. Vs. UPSC & Anr"
(viii) Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd & Anr. Vs H.L. Kaveri & Ors", reported as (2020) 3 SCC 108
(ix) Order/judgement dated 11.6.2020 of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No.4087/2020 titled "Ramhari Gurjar Vs State of UP & Ors", reported in 2020 SCC OnLine All 834 20 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018
(x) Order/judgement dated 21.7.2020 of Hon'ble CAT, PB, New Delhi in OA No.100/886/2020 titled "Pradeep Kumar Meena Vs UPSC & Anr
(xi) Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors Vs State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors, reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344
(xii) Divya Vs Union of India & Ors, reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1305
(xiii) Ankita Thakur & Ors vs HPSSC & Ors reported as 2023 SCC Online SC 1472
4. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant it is contended that the applicant had submitted all required documents in support of his eligibility, including detailed experience information, and was not provided any opportunity to rectify alleged deficiencies, unlike other similarly placed candidates. Initially, the Respondent cited non- submission of certificates, which was later changed to non-mention of duties, an inconsistent and contradictory stance. It is submitted that such hyper-technical grounds are arbitrary and that 21 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 Respondent No. 2, not being an expert body in forensic science, is not competent to assess technical qualifications, which should be left to the subject expert interview panel. The applicant was, in fact, permitted to appear for the interview pursuant to interim orders and was found suitable by the expert panel. Thus, the rejection of his application violates principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and is not supported by the Recruitment Rules or any valid legal reasoning, warranting its setting aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the respective parties and perused the pleadings on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1. Having considered the rival contentions as well as the case laws cited by both sides, the issue that arises for our consideration is whether an online application form, which is incomplete in terms of uploaded documents but complete with respect to educational qualifications and experience 22 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 details, entails rejection of the candidature at the short-listing stage.
6.2 What emerges clearly is that, before the closing date of application, the candidate must be in possession of the requisite essential qualifications.
The applicant had made a declaration in the application form stating that all requisite documents, including the JRF, SRF, and Ph.D. certificates, were duly submitted on time. It has been urged that the UPSC misread the advertisement, as Clause 6(A)(d) does not mandate uploading of all documents at the initial stage, and the Commission's interpretation is inconsistent with its own past practice.
6.3 The issue here is not whether the applicant possessed the essential qualification(s), as that has already been adjudicated on the touchstone of equivalence. This examination was conducted by the respondents during the provisional selection process, which the applicant cleared with flying colors. There can be no doubt that the interview 23 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 board would have assessed whether the applicant possessed the essential qualifications under the Recruitment Rules (RRs). It would also have evaluated the applicant's research on "Forensic Analysis of inks on documents, dyes and samples", which squarely falls within the domain of questioned documents and fulfills the experience criteria prescribed in the RRs.
6.4 In Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 754, Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472, Charles K. Skaria & Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Others, (1980) 2 SCC 752, Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779, Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2017) 11 SCC 276, Alok Kumar Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 242, and Deepak Yadav & Others vs. Union Public Service Commission and Another, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 709, the individuals who were granted relief had all 24 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 possessed the eligibility before the cut-off date. The only issue in those cases was the submission of proof.
6.5 In Civil Appeal Nos......................./2023 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 21319/2022], Union of India vs. Uzair Imran & Ors., decided on 11.10.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"17. There is little doubt that the decision to treat the third respondent as ineligible was based on the certificate; however, there is no gainsaying that the certificate produced by the third respondent in support of his claim that he had qualified in the relevant examination and, thus, was eligible to be considered for appointment, did leave room for two views. It is settled law that unfettered discretion, unaccountable approach and arbitrariness in State action are antithesis to Article 14; and, particularly when two views could possibly emerge looking at the certificate of educational qualification placed by the third respondent, with both views not being wholly unworthy of acceptance, fairness in administrative procedure demanded that the appellant ought to have given reason, howsoever brief, as to why it preferred to consider the third respondent to have succeeded in the relevant examination through "vocational stream", thereby attracting ineligibility, without considering the effect of the remark 'Regular' at the foot of the certificate. The contents of the letter dated 22nd March, 1996, which sounded the death knell for the third respondent, is clearly suggestive of a general direction given to the addressee Postmasters General; they were not called upon to scrutinise each certificate on its merits. As such, there was no individual rejection but a general rejection without applying one's mind to the contents of the certificate. It was, thus, highly improper for the appellant to reject the candidature 25 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 of the third respondent outright in the absence of a proper appreciation of the certificate.
18. Even if it is assumed that the certificate was duly looked into, we are inclined to the view on facts (given the contents of the certificate produced by the third respondent and in the absence of conclusive information as to the nature of education imparted to the third respondent at the intermediate level) that the appellant ought to have, in the least, requested for a clarification from the said Board as to whether the third respondent could be treated to have cleared the intermediate examination of 1991 in "vocational stream" or in the category of 'Regular' and, thus, was (in)eligible to compete for appointment in terms of the 1990 Rules, as amended. It was not within the province of the appellant to scrutinise the certificate of the third respondent with an approach of "one eye open, one eyed closed" and declare that his intermediate education was in a "vocational stream", overlooking or ignoring that the self-same certificate bore the remark 'Regular'. The determination of the appellant, in the present case, undoubtedly hinged on its scarce knowledge of the nature of the third respondent's education, evincing that his exclusion was not on the basis of a valid and proper reason and was, decidedly, arbitrary.
19. The principle that if two views are reasonably possible on a given set of facts and that the courts would stay away from interference and not substitute its view for the view taken by the employer, may not apply in a case of the present nature where the conflicting views could be resolved by a mere reference to the certificate issuing authority to clarify what the certificate connoted. After all, the future of a prospective appointee called for an approach consistent with the preambular promise of securing justice and equality of opportunity, which the appellant failed to secure."
6.6 The applicant applied for the post of Scientist 'B' (Documents) in response to the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission. His application was rejected on the grounds that 26 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 the experience certificate did not specify the nature of duties/research work, and thus was treated as incomplete. Condition No. 6(A)(h)(vi) inter alia provides that "Candidates are not required to submit to the Commission either by post or by hand the printouts of their online applications or any other document." Condition No. 6(A)(ii)(d) of the same clause prescribes that candidates should mention the entire experience claimed in the prescribed proforma. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the respondents that since the applicant did not comply with this requirement, his application was rightly treated as incomplete and accordingly rejected. 6.7 A harmonious reading of both clauses reveals that the rejection of the application on the ground of being incomplete was done in a mechanical manner. There is no dispute that the applicant declared all his essential qualifications while filing the online application form. The documents were also uploaded. Moreover, as per the instructions, candidates "will be required to bring along with 27 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 them the printouts of their online applications and the documents mentioned in para 7 below if called for interview." This clause itself reflects that the applicant had the right to produce these documents at the time of the interview as well. It is beyond argument that the application format required every minute detail of the JRF, SRF, and Ph.D. (specializations), which are part and parcel of the essential qualifications under the RRs. The qualifications of the applicant, which fall within the ambit of the RRs, are not in dispute. 6.8. In People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another vs. Union of India & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 399, at paragraph 73, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"73. While no exception can be taken to the insistence of affidavit with regard to the matters specified in the judgment in Assn for Democratic Reforms case, the direction to reject the nomination paper for furnishing wrong information or concealing material information and providing for a summary enquiry at the time of scrutiny of the nominations, cannot be justified. In the case of assets and liabilities, it would be very difficult for the Returning Officer to consider the truth or otherwise of the details furnished with reference to the 'documentary proof'. Very often, in such matters the documentary proof may not be clinching and the candidate concerned may be handicapped to rebut 28 Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 the allegation then and there. If sufficient time is provided, he may be able to produce proof to contradict the objector's version. It is true that the aforesaid directions issued by the Election Commission are not under challenge but at the same time prima facie it appears that the Election Commission is required to revise its instructions in the light of directions issued in Assn for Democratic Reforms case and as provided under the Representation of the People Act and its third Amendment."
6.9 Objective satisfaction should be the paramount consideration at the shortlisting stage, rather than subjective satisfaction, which should be left to the discretion of the interview panel, who are the experts responsible for selecting the most suitable candidate for the post in question. It is not even the case of the respondents that the application form was left blank, or that any particulars were missing to such an extent as to directly violate the fundamental right of other candidates to know the criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities, or educational qualifications of the applicant. Nor is it a case of false declaration or misrepresentation of educational qualifications or experience that could lead to a fraudulent situation.
29Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the above discussions, we hereby quash and set aside the action of the respondents in not shortlisting the applicant for the interview.
7.2. Since the applicant has already been allowed to participate provisionally in the selection process by virtue of orders passed by this Tribunal, the result of the applicant shall be declared.
7.3. Upon such declaration, in the event that the applicant is found to be qualified on his own merit, he shall be offered an appointment, if otherwise eligible. The applicant shall also be entitled to consequential benefits, such as seniority and notional pay, in accordance with the merit list. However, the actual salary shall be payable from the date of assuming charge.
7.4. This entire exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.30
Item No.44/ Court-III O.A. No.1018/2018 7.5. The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg) Member (A) Member (J) /sm/