Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Abhijit Ghosh vs Union Of India on 16 May, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.69/2011
M.A.No.2744/2011
Reserved on: 09.05.2012
Pronounced on :16.05.2012
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
Shri Abhijit Ghosh
S/o Shri Arun Kumar Ghosh
R/o C-I/50, Sector-11,
Rohini, Delhi-110085. ..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Vinay Sabharwal with Ms. Neha Sabharwal.
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi.
2. Director General of Health Services,
Central Drugs Standardization Control
Organization,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069. ..Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma for Respondents No. 1 &2.
Shri J.B. Mudgil for Respondent No.3.
ORDER
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has sought the following relief:-
(i) Direct the respondents to consider the applicant for the post of Dy. Drugs Controller (India) in the Central Drugs Standardization Control Organization (CDCSO) under the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare;
(ii) To declare the degree of Masters in Biomedical Engineering to be equivalent to the degree of Masters in Pharmacy or Pharmacology and to direct the respondents to treat the said two degrees accordingly; and
(iii) To declare the applicant to be eligible for the said post of Dy. Drugs Controller (India) in the Central Drugs Standardization Control Organization (CDCSO) under the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was directly employed on the post of Drugs Inspector, with the Drugs Control Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. The applicant possesses a Masters Degree in Bio-Medical Engineering which is equivalent to a Masters Degree in Pharmacy/Pharmacology from Jadavpur Univerversity, which is a recognized University. The applicant is also an Ex-CSIR Senior Research Fellow of Pharma Technology Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata. After obtaining his Masters Degree in Biomedical Engineering, the applicant was selected for the post of Senior Research Fellow under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Pusa, Delhi, the project was Research on Medicinal Plants which was a Pharmaceutical Project and the applicant carried his research work in Pharmaceutical Project and the applicant carried his research work in the Pharmaceutical Technology Department, Jadhavpur Univeristy, Kolkata, West Bengal.
3. The post of Dy. Drugs Controller was advertised by the UPSC with the eligibility qualifications as under:-
(Ref.No.1/230/2009-R-II) Five Deputy Drugs Controllers (India) in the Central Drugs Standardization control Organisation (CDSCO) under the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Out of five posts, one post each is reserved for SC & OBC candidates.
QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL: A. Educational: Masters Degree in Chemistry/Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry/Pharmacy/Pharmacology of a recognized University or equivalent.
B. EXPERIENCE: Twelve years experience in dealing with problems connected with drug standardization and control of drug standards in the manufacture of testing of drugs.
DESIRABLE: Experience of administration of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules thereafter and/or of manufacture and testing of drugs and/or dealing with problems connected with Import and Export of drugs.
Since applicant was eligible, he applied for the same. However, he was not called for the interview. He gave a representation also to the UPSC (page 19) but no response was given. He, therefore, had no objection but to file the present OA.
4. According to the applicant Masters in Biomedical Engineering is equivalent to Masters in Pharmacy/ Pharmacology, therefore, his application could not have been rejected by the UPSC without examining the equivalence.
5. UPSC has opposed the OA. They have explained this case relates to recruitment to 5 posts of Deputy Drugs Controller (India) in the Central Drugs Standardization & Control Organization (CDSCO) under the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in the pay sale of Rs.12000-375-16500 advertised vide Commissions Advertisement No.3, Item No.21 on 13.2.2010. Out of 5 posts, 1 post was reserved for OBC candidates and remaining 3 posts were unreserved. Age limit was 50 years as on normal closing date, 55 years for SC candidates and 53 years for OBC candidates in respect of vacancies reserved for them.
ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION A. Educational:
Masters Degree in Chemistry/Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry/Pharmacy/Pharmacology of a recognized University or equivalent.
B. EXPERIENCE:
12 years experience in dealing with problems connected with drug standardization and control of drug standards in the manufacture of testing of drugs.
C. DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS:
Experience of administration of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules thereafter and/or of manufacture and testing of drugs and/or dealing with problems connected with Import and Export of drugs.
D. The short listing criteria adopted in this case are as under:-
(I) For SC Candidates EQ (A) + Ph.D + EQ-B (i.e. 12 years experience) OR For OBC Candidates - EQ (A) + Ph.D + EQ-B (i.e. 12 years experience) (III) For General Candidates - EQ (A) raised to Ph.D + EQ-B raised to 16 years OR EQ-A + EQ-B raised to 19 years E. 280 applications were received against the advertisement and after scrutiny, initially 41 candidates (10 SC, 8 OBC and 23 General candidates) were summoned for interview. The applicant, Shri Abhijit Ghosh having Roll No.18 (General) was not called for interview as his application was rejected under the category of Lacking Essential Qualificaiton- A (LEA-A). Against the prescribed Essential Educational Qualification of Masters Degree in Chemistry/Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry/Pharmacy/ Pharmacology of a recognized University or equivalent. The applicant was having Masters Degree in Bio-Medical Engineering. However, in pursuance of Honble Central Administrative Tribunals interim order dated 10.1.2011, he was interviewed provisionally on 12.1.2011, along with other shortlisted candidates and 2 more candidates who were also called in pursuance of interim orders of Honble CAT (PB), New Delhi and Honble CAT, Chandigarh. Interviews for the post have been held on 10-12 January, 2011. Due to pendency of these 3 OAs, result of the interview has not been declared. They have specifically stated that the applicant was not having educational qualification prescribed for the post. He had also not furnished any proof of equivalence of Masters Degree possessed by him to the prescribed educational qualification from the competent authority though para 7 (iii) of the important instructions for the candidates published in the Employment News of 13-19 February, 2010 along with advertisement for the subject post provides that if the qualification possessed by the candidate is equivalent, the authority (with number and date under which it has been so treated must be indicated. They have further stated that as per procedure, administrative Ministry was also duly informed of the rejection made on this ground, therefore, the OA may be dismissed. They have relied on following judgments:-
(i) M.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Another reported in JT 1994 (6) SC 302.
(ii) Government of A.P. Vs. P. Dilip Kumar and Another reported in JT 1993 (2) SC 138.
to state that they are well within their right to short list the candidates.
6. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed separate reply. They have stated as per RRs for the post of Dy. Drugs Controller (India) educational qualifications are as under:-
(i)Masters Degree in Chemistry/Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry/Pharmacy/Pharmacology of a recognized University or equivalent.
(ii) Twelve years experience in dealing with problems connected with drug standardization and control of drug standards in the manufacture of testing of drugs.
In addition, experience of administration of the Drugs and Cosmetics connected with import and export of drugs was prescribed as desirable qualification.
Thus the engineering qualification possessed by the applicant herein is not one of the prescribed qualifications for the post of Dy. Drugs Controller (India) and hence he is not eligible for consideration to the post of direct recruitment. If the applicants qualification is equivalent, as claimed by him, to one of the qualifications prescribed for the psot as per the notified RRs, it was incumbent upon him to submit the necessary equivalency certificate issued by the appropriate authority at the time os submission of his application to the post. To cite an example, the candidates possessing the Associateship (AIC) Examination conducted by the Institution of Chemists (India), Kolkata submit the requisite certificate as equivalent to M.Sc degree in Chemistry. If the contention of the applicant herein is accepted it will have wider repercussions on recruitment to public services as persons having innumerable educational and other qualifications could challenge recruitments arbitrarily claiming to possess equivalency in the manner as has been done by the applicant herein. Since the candidate has not followed the right course in making his application, it was bound to be rejected at the consideration stage itself and he could not have been aggrieved on this account. As such the present OA is misconceived and is bereft of any substance in the allegations levelled against the respondents herein.
7. They have further stated that mere possession of the minimum qualification/experience prescribed for a post cannot guarantee a persons selection where personnel with higher qualifications and specialized experience are available in abundance. Hence, short listing of applications by recruiting agency is a legitimate process in selections where number of applications is found to be very high. Moreover, the selection to the post in the instant case is to be made by the UPSC which is an independent constitutional body and any allegation of bias against the constitutional institution and the members of the Interview Board is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of these facts, the OA herein is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The claim of equivalence of Masters degree in Biomedical Engineering with Masters degree in Pharmacy/Pharmacology requires to be certified by the competent authority/organization viz. the Association of Indian Universities (an autonomous expert body under Ministry of Human Resources Development) which has not been submitted by the applicant herein in support of his said claim. They have also prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
8. We have heard all the counsel and perused the pleadings. Admittedly, applicant had applied for the post Dy. Drugs Controller pursuant to an advertisement issued in Employment News 13-19 February wherein essential qualifications were mentioned as follows:-
QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL: A. Educational: Masters Degree in Chemistry/Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry/Pharmacy/Pharmacology of a recognized University or equivalent.
B. EXPERIENCE: Twelve years experience in dealing with problems connected with drug standardization and control of drug standards in the manufacture of testing of drugs.
DESIRABLE: Experience of administration of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules thereafter and/or of manufacture and testing of drugs and/or dealing with problems connected with Import and Export of drugs.
It is relevant to note that in the same advertisement specific instructions were issued which read as under:-
MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFCAITONS: All applicants must fulfill the essential requirements of the post and other conditions stipulated in the advertisement. They are advised to satisfy themselves before applying that they possess at least the essential qualifications laid down for various posts. No enquiry asking for advice as to be eligibility will be entertained.
NOTE-I: The prescribed essential qualifications are the minimum and the mere possession of the same does not entitle candidates to be called for interview.
NOTE-II: Where the number of applications received in response to an advertisement is large and it will not be convenient or possible for the Commission to interview all the candidates, the Commission at their discretion may restrict the number of candidates, to a reasonable limit by any or more of the following methods:
(a) On the basis of either qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement ; or
(b) ON the basis of experience in the relevant field; or ) By counting experience before or after the acquisition of essential qualifications; or
(d) By holding a screening test.
The candidate should, therefore, mention all the qualifications and experience in the relevant field over and above the minimum qualifications and should attach attested/self certified copies of the Certificates in support thereof.
NOTE-III: In regard to Educational Qualifications, the mark sheet in lieu of Educational Certificates will not be accepted by the Commission.
NOTE-IV: The provisional claim whatsoever in regard to eligibility to the post will not be accepted by the Commission.
The most important is para 7 which reads as under:-
7. CERTIFICATE TO BE ATTACHED Candidates should note that they should attach with their applications attested/self certified copies of the following documents:
(i) Matriculation or equivalent certificate in support of their declaration of age.
(ii) Degree or Diploma Certificate or other certificates in support of their educational qualifications.
(iii) If the qualification possessed by the candidate is equivalent, then the authority (with number and date) under which is has been so treated must be indicated.
9. From the above advertisement, 3 things are absolutely clear that it was made known to the applicant that (a) mere possession of minimum qualification would not entitle a person to be considered; (b) UPSC would resort to shortlisting by fixing higher qualification; and (c) the candidates who claim to be having equivalent educational qualification were required to indicate the authority (with number and ate) under which it has been so treated. So the onus was on the applicant to show how he claims to be having the equivalent educational qualification.
10. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the UPSC should have examined whether the qualification possessed by the applicant was equivalent to the prescribed educational qualification or not and in support of this argument placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Madras High Court in the case of G. Selvam and Others Vs. The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board and Others.
11. Perusal of this judgment shows that this case was decided on the basis of rules which existed in that case.
12. The above judgment, according to us, would not advance the case of the applicant because he is bound by the terms of the advertisement, pursuant to which he had applied. In the said advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that if any candidate claims to have the equivalent educational qualification, he must annex the authority who declares it to be equivalent, therefore, the onus was on the applicant at the Ist instance to demonstrate that the qualifications possessed by him were equivalent to the required qualification as mentioned in the advertisement, then only the question of verification of same or process of application of mind by the UPSC would have arisen. In the instant case, admittedly applicant had not given any such authority along with his application, therefore, the question of applying mind by the UPSC whether it was equivalent or not does not arise when applicant had not annexed any such authority. Moreover, UPSC had clearly mentioned in the advertisement that they could resort to shortlisting the candidates by fixing higher qualifications or experience. They have specifically stated that they had received as many as 280 applications as against 5 posts as such they had adopted shortlisting criteria as follows:
(I) For SC Candidates EQ (A) + Ph.D + EQ-B (i.e. 12 years experience) OR For OBC Candidates - EQ (A) + Ph.D + EQ-B (i.e. 12 years experience) (III) For General Candidates - EQ (A) raised to Ph.D + EQ-B raised to 16 years OR EQ-A + EQ-B raised to 19 years meaning thereby, the educational qualification was raised from Masters Degree to Ph.D. and applicant didnt have the essential qualification. It is not even the case of applicant that he possessed Ph.D. Since he didnt have the Ph.D., he was found as not having essential qualification.
13. The applicant has not challenged the advertisement, therefore, if UPSC had resorted to shortlisting the candidates by enhancing the educational qualification, applicant cannt still insist that he should be considered for the post on lower educational qualifications.
14. The right to shortlisting the candidates has been recognized by the Honble Supreme Court in following judgments:
(i) M.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar and Another reported in JT 1994 (6) SC 302.
(ii) Government of A.P. Vs. P. Dilip Kumar and Another reported in JT 1993 (2) SC 138.
15. In view of above facts, we dont find any good ground to interfere in the case. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
Rakesh