Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Kamal Chauhan vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 6 January, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.1918/2012
Reserved on: 02.12.2013
Pronounced on: 06.01.2014
Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman
Honble Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A)
Dr. Kamal Chauhan
S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh,
H.No. 88, Khirki Village,
P.O. Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110 017. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Balraj Dewan)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Block No.4, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003
through its Director.
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi through its Secretary. Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri Amit Anand for Union of India
Shri R. N. Singh for the U. P. S. C.)
O R D E R
By Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A):
The instant Original Application is not directed against any particular order. It rather seeks directives to the Union Public Service Commission, the respondent no.3 herein, to issue interview letter to the applicant for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II (Biology) [hereinafter referred to SSO-II] scheduled to be held on 7th June, 2012 and keep one post reserved for him till the final outcome of the OA.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the applicant had applied for the post of SSO-II (Biology) on 26.09.2011 in response to the Advertisement No.17/2011 issued by the respondent no.3 for filling up a number of posts of SSO-II in various disciplines in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory [hereinafter referred to as CFSL], Central Bureau of Investigation, Ministry of Home Affairs, which figures as respondent no.1 in this OA, the applicant, against Item No.4 of the advertisement. It is the case of the applicant that despite having fulfilled all the essential qualifications for the candidature, he was not issued a call letter which led to filing of the instant OA. When the matter came up before the Vacation Bench on 05.06.2012 for consideration of interim prayer, the Tribunal directed the respondents to permit the applicant to participate in the interview provisionally with a rider not to disclose/publish the result. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant part of the Tribunals order dated 05.06.2012 is being extracted hereunder:-
Learned counsel appearing for UPSC submitted that applicant may ask CFSL to take up the matter with UPSC regarding equivalence of aforementioned qualification. He also submitted that in case of such equivalence being certified by CFSL to UPSC, applicant would be considered in selection for afore-mentioned post. Since the interview for the post in question is scheduled on 7.6.2012, applicant shall be allowed to participate in the same provisionally. However, the result of selection in respect of applicant shall not be disclosed/published. The applicant submits that a certificate for equivalent qualification was issued by the Director, CFSL to UPSC as per its requirement as also in compliance of the orders of the Tribunal vide his communication dated 13.06.2012, relevant part of which reads as under:-
Sub: Equivalence educational qualification for the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Biology) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CBI), New Delhi (Advt. No.17/2011).
Ref: OA No. 1918/2012 dated 05.06.2012.
Sir, With reference to the above, the undersigned has been directed to certify to the UPSC that M.Sc. Biochemistry is to be considered as an equivalent educational qualification for the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Biology) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CBI), New Delhi advertised by UPSC vide Advt. No.17/2011.
In view of the above, I am herewith certifying that M.Sc. Biochemistry is an equivalent educational qualification for the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Biology) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CBI), New Delhi.
M.Sc. Biochemistry has already been included as essential qualification for the post of SSO, Grade-II (Biology) being advertised for the CFSLs of Directorate of Forensic Science Services, MHA, New Delhi which is the nodal agency for all matters related to forensic science. Accordingly, in terms of the Tribunals order dated 05.06.2012, the applicant was interviewed by a duly constituted Selection Board of UPSC comprising Member- UPSC as Chairman of the Board and two expert members appointed by the UPSC itself. The result of the Selection Board has been kept in sealed cover.
3. The applicant is aggrieved by the fact that the UPSC has refused to select the applicant while the Selection Board constituted by it had considered all the relevant factors and found him suitable for the post in question. The applicant further submits that in an earlier point of time, the UPSC had also issued Advertisement No.12 (Item No.6) on 27.06.2009 inviting applications for filling up the posts of SSO-II (Ballistics) in the CFSL from those candidates who possess the essential qualification of M.Sc. with Physics, Chemistry and Maths or equivalent. The respondents considered the qualification of M.Sc. with Forensic Science as an equivalent qualification for the said post though it had not been mentioned in the advertisement/recruitment rules and no certificate from the University or any Department/employer had been attached by the applicant for claiming equivalence. However, in the instant case the respondent no.3 has not considered any qualification as equivalent qualification though the qualification for the post mentioned in the advertisement was M.Sc. in Zoology, Anthropology (Physical) and Botany or equivalent. The applicant further submits that he had also approached the University Grants Commission for equivalent qualification qua the qualification advertised, which was pleased to reply that UGC does not determine equivalence between degrees. A reply to similar effect has also been given by the M.D. University, Rohtak, relevant part of which reads as under:-
As Department of Biochemistry got separated in 2009 and dont have old documentation. Therefore, Department dont have relevant documents related to your query. Personal opinion cannot be given under RTI. However, it is to state that during Bioscience Department in the period 1997-99, first year of all the courses was common including Biochemistry and Zoology. The applicant further submits that this Tribunal, vide its order dated 13.05.2013 had directed the respondent no.3 to file an affidavit as to whether M.Sc. (Bio-Chemistry) has been included as equivalent essential qualification for the post of SSO-II (Biology) being advertised for the CFSL of Directorate of Forensic Science Services, MHA, which is the nodal agency for all matters related to Forensic Science. For the sake of convenience, the Tribunals order is reproduced as hereunder:-
We have heard this matter to some extent. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on a document dated 13th June, 2013 contained in Annexure A-8 to the rejoinder whereby the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CBI), New Delhi intimated to the Secretary to the UPSC that M.Sc. Bio Chemistry has already been included as equivalent essential qualification for the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Biology) being advertised for the Central Forensic Science Laboratories of Directorate of Forensic Science Services, MHA, which is the nodal agency for all matters related to Forensic Science. It is submitted that the Director has certified that M.Sc. Bio Chemistry is to be considered as an equivalent educational qualification for the post of Sr. Scientific Officer-II(Biology) in CFSL (CBI), New Delhi and, therefore, his candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that he lacks requisite qualification
4. The applicant has adopted the following grounds in support of his claim:-
The applicant holds 1st class M.Sc. degree in Bio-Chemistry (Gold Medalist) and Ph.D. in DNA Finger Printing having 8 years experience in analysis of crime exhibits related to Forensic Biology in Biology Division of CFSL, CBI with an overall experience of 13 years in Biological Laboratories. The Ph.D. degree in DNA Finger Printing is also relevant and related to main work of Biology Division of CFSL, CBI and as the applicant has been working in CFSL, CBI (Biology Division) for the last 8 years he meets all other desirable qualifications.
The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 averred that the applicant may ask CFSL to take up the matter with UPSC regarding equivalence of the qualification possessed by him, and in the event of such certificate being provided, the applicant could be considered for selection to the post in question. The above averment has also been recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 05.06.2012. Since the required certificate has been provided, the same alone entitles the applicant for appointment to the post of SSO-II (Biology).
The UPSC in earlier point of time had also taken opinion of the feeder department while considering the equivalent qualification i.e. M.Sc. Forensic Science for recruitment to the post of SSO-II (Ballistics) in CFSL, although it was not prescribed in the recruitment rules.
It is the prerogative of the feeder department to decide on equivalence of degrees. The MHA, being the nodal agency for all forensic related matters, has recognized eight degrees including M.Sc. Bio-Chemistry for the same post i.e. SSO-II (Biology) in CFSL, CBI in the same pay scale.
The Interview Board has found the applicant fit for the post.
5. The UPSC, respondent no.3 herein, has filed its counter affidavit resisting the OA, stating therein that the respondent no.3 is a constitutional body established under Articles 315 to 323 of the Constitution assigned the function of primarily undertaking recruitment and selection of civil posts under Article 320 of the Constitution. It is vested with the powers to devise its internal autonomous modes of functioning and procedures objectively and in a just and equitable manner including reasonable classification of various applicants on the basis of their academic qualifications and experience as an integral part. It has been further submitted that with its vast experience and expertise, the respondent no.3 has evolved foolproof systems and procedures for carrying out the functions entrusted to it under the Constitution and which have been upheld by various Honble Courts including the Apex Court. The respondent no.3 has again submitted that 454 applications were received in response to the advertisement in question, out of which 14 candidates, who were considered prima facie suitable, were called for interview on 07.06.2012 in the Commission. The applicant was not called for interview as his application was rejected under the category of LEG i.e. Lacking Educational Qualification. However, in pursuance of the Tribunals interim order dated 05.06.2012, the applicant along with another candidate (Roll No. 411) was interviewed provisionally on 07.06.2012. Though the result has not been declared, the respondent no.3 has produced the result sheet before this Tribunal in compliance of its directions. The applicant was admittedly not in possession of any of the Masters degrees prescribed i.e. M.Sc. in Zoology, Anthropology (Physical) and/or Botany from a recognized University or equivalent thereto. The recruitments to these posts are covered under their respective recruitment rules. The recruitment rules for the post of SSO-II (Biology) in CFSL, CBI prescribe only three Masters degrees as essential qualification that being M.Sc. in Zoology, Anthropology (Physical) and/or Botany from a recognized University. Since the applicant does not possess any of these three Masters degrees, his application for the post of SSO-II (Biology) has been rightly rejected.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3 further submits that the Tribunal has directed the applicant to produce a certificate of equivalence from the Institute from where he has graduated, which he has failed to produce. The respondent no.3 has also filed a short counter affidavit reciting therein that the decision to treat a certain educational qualifications as equivalent is taken on merit on case to case basis in the specific circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the qualification of M.Sc. Bio-Chemistry was not found equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for the post in question and, as such, the case of the applicant has rightly been rejected. The respondent no.3 further submits that the applications of all candidates possessing the qualification of M.Sc. Bio-Chemistry have been rejected by the Commission and the said qualification has not been treated as equivalent to M.Sc. Zoology, Anthropology (Physical) and/or Botany.
7. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the facts stated earlier in his OA. As has already been discussed above, the applicant has heavily relied upon the Certificate dated 01.06.2012 issued by one Dr. Rajinder Singh, Director, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi.
8. We have carefully considered the pleadings and such documentary evidences as have been adduced by the parties and have carefully listened to the oral submissions made by their respective learned counsels and on the basis thereof, the following issues emerge for determination:-
Who is competent to declare the equivalence of the degrees?
Whether the certificate provided by the Director, CFSL, CBI is tantamount to accepting the equivalence of degrees prescribed?
Whether this Tribunal is competent to issue directions for treating equivalence?
Whether the applicant having been selected by the Selection Committee appointed by the UPSC confers any right upon him to appointment?
What relief, if any, could be provided to the applicant?
9. In so far as the first issue is concerned, it emerges clearly that the UPSC is an expert constitutional body. The qualifications are indicated by the requisitioning department. However, the issue of equivalence is determined by an expert body appointed by the UPSC on case to case basis on merit under specific circumstances of the case. There is a body of experts in the UPSC under the nomenclature of Equivalence Committee. Unless this Committee were to certify that a qualification is equivalent to those advertised, no equivalence is to be established. In the instant case, the applicant has relied upon the RTI information issued on 07.12.2012 in respect of the advertised post in Employment News dated 27th June 3rd July, 2010 for recruitment to the post of SSO-II (Ballistics). In that particular case, the Equivalence Committee held the qualification of M.Sc. in Forensic Science equivalent to the degrees asked for. However, the same was in relation to a different qualification and a different advertisement. Qualifications are tailored to suit the requirements of a job. It is evident from the additional affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 that the Equivalence Committee alone is competent to declare equivalence of qualifications. The post of SSO-II (Ballistics) and the one under consideration in the instant case i.e. SSO-II (Biology) are two different posts carrying their own requirements. It would be too far fetched to seek equivalence between these two posts in respect of what has been claimed. It is an agreed position that equivalence to qualifications desired can be established, it is, however, a function of the Equivalence Committee. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that once the Equivalence Committee has held in respect of the instant advertisement that the Degree of M.Sc. in Bio-Chemistry is not equivalent to the three degrees prescribed for the post of SSO-II (Biology), the same would be good and binding. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the applicant.
10. In so far as the second issue is concerned, this has partly been answered while discussing the first issue. The Director, CFSL has indeed provided a certificate of equivalence. However, it is not the Director, CFSL who is competent to take a decision on equivalence but it is the Equivalence Committee within the UPSC. We have also taken a note of the fact that the applicant had been working under the Director, CFSL for a number of years. The question would then arise as to why the matter was referred at all to the Director, CFSL when its equivalence was not to be accepted. This was only to ascertain as to what was the opinion of different departments. This Tribunal had not at any point of time held that opinion of the Director, CFSL would be binding. It would rather be considered by the expert bodies and their opinion would finally prevail. Thus, this issue is also answered against the applicant.
11. In so far as the third issue is concerned, the basic postulates need to be clearly spelt out. It is a well accepted fact that this Tribunal is not a substitute for expert or academic bodies constituted for specific purpose of deciding equivalence of degrees. The superior courts have repeatedly emphasized that the Tribunals/Courts should be content to adjudicate within their own realm and should be loath to venture into academic question like equivalence of degrees or their adequacy/inadequacy to particular requirements. These matters are best left to such bodies or people who have been specially designated for this purpose. Before the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another versus Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, Etc. [1984 (4) SCC 27] a similar issue had cropped up for decision. When the respondents laboring under the feeling that a proper evaluation of their performance had not been done in the examination, they staked a claim demanding inspection of the copies to ascertain whether there was a proper evaluation of the answers to all questions, whether the totaling of marks had been done correctly and whether there had been any tempering with the seat numbers written on the answer books and supplementary sheets. They had further claimed that the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject be declared as ultra vires, unreasonable and void on account of not having such provisions to such effect. Their claim, though heeded by the Honble High Court in parts, was considered and rejected by the Honble Supreme Court stating that the principles of natural justice could not be extended beyond a reasonable and rational limits or carried to such absurd lengths as making the examinees to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the evaluators. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
14It would be wholly wrong for the court to substitute its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power conferred on the delegate by the Statute. Though this legal position is well-established by a long series of decisions of this Court, we have considered it necessary to reiterate it in view of the manifestly erroneous approach made by the High Court to the consideration of the question as to whether the impugned cl. (3) of Regn. 104 is ultra vires. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we shall now proceed to consider the challenge levelled against the validity of the Regn. 104 (3).
In yet another case titled as Bhushan Uttam Khare versus the Dean, B.J. Medical College and Others [1992(2) SCC 220], the appellant had applied with 166 other students for revaluation to the Executive Council of the University for making an enquiry on report of the Committee. The University of Pune decided to cancel the revaluation result and to conduct further revaluation. The decision of the Executive Council cancelling the earlier revaluation and directing a second revaluation was challenged by the petitioners and others in a Writ before the Honble High Court of Bombay which was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. The appellants then approached the Honble Supreme Court which upheld the view taken by the Honble High Court that the educational institutions set up Enquiry Committee to deal with the problems posed by the adoption of unfair means and it is clearly within their domestic jurisdiction to decide all questions in the light of the material adduced. Unless there is an absolute and compelling justification, the Courts are slow to interfere with the autonomous activities of the Executive Councils. The Honble Supreme Court has held as under:-
8. We have considered all the materials placed before us in the light of arguments advanced keeping in mind the well accepted principle that in deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. We are satisfied that there had been sufficient material before the Executive Council to proceed in the manner in which it has done. It is not correct to say that the University had acted on nonexisting rule for ordering revaluation. Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation also for further action. The fact that two examiners were also the members of the Committee which recommended for revaluation cannot result in any bias even if they had been directly concerned with the original evaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also there had been some changes between the original valuation and the revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring or demonstrably unconscionable as seen in the first revaluation. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the petitioner that the High Court had erred in not granting the relief sought for. We can only observe that the case of the petitioner, who alone has come before this Court and who had secured higher marks in the first revaluation and is, therefore, aggrieved by the cancellation of the same, would be duly considered in the selection for Post-Graduate Course. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Likewise, in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others versus Lata Arun [2002 (6) SCC 252], the Honble Supreme Court has taken a similar view. In the said case the issue involved was that whether the respondent had eligibility qualification for admission in General Nursing, Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course commencing in the year 1990. The Director, Medical and Health Services had invited applications from eligible candidates for admission in the nursing course having passed the first year of three years' degree course (TDC) or 10+2 and the candidates with science subjects (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) will be given preference. The respondent also applied for the said post. She had obtained a Madhyama Certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in 1984. This certificate was previously recognized as equivalent to a degree in Hindi. However, the said recognition had ceased to be operative from 1985, which is certified by the Deputy Secretary, Association of Indian Universities. The matter went upto the Honble High Court, which left it to the discretion of the Nursing Council being the competent body, which decided that the respondent was not eligible. However, the Honble Supreme Court held that such matters are best considered by appropriate authorities and it is not for the Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed by the authorities. For the sake of greater clarity, the relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
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.
12. In yet another case titled as Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U.P. versus Rajendra Singh and Others [2009 (17) SCC 452], the Honble Supreme Court has clearly held in a similar fashion that it is for the rule making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the qualifications for recruitment and courts will not interfere with the qualifications prescribed by such authorities. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
11. Though the Division Bench noted that CPEd was never recognized by the State Government as equivalent to BTC, HTC or JTC, it was of the view that having regard to the directions contained in the Government letter dated 23.3.1995 issued under Section 13 of the Act, candidates who possess CPEd Certificates were eligible to be considered as untrained candidates, who, on selection and appointment should be subjected to training. But the Division Bench overlooked the fact that though the government direction dated 23.3.1995, may apply to advertisement dated 18.1.1997, the said direction dated 23.3.1995 was revoked and superseded by the subsequent government direction dated 11.8.1997. The Government direction dated 11.8.1997, is a policy formulated in pursuance of NCTE guidelines, to make appointments only in accordance with the rules, without relaxations. It did not suffer from any infirmity. When the said direction was received, the Board apparently decided not to proceed with the selection process commenced in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.1.1997 and issued a fresh advertisement dated 17.8.1997, which it was entitled to do. It is now well settled that merely because a candidate is eligible when the advertisement was issued or that a candidate's name is included in the selection list does not confer any right to the candidate to be appointed. It is also well settled that it is for the rule making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the qualifications for recruitment and courts will not interfere with the qualifications prescribed by such authority. In this case, the Board decided not to pursue the recruitment advertisement dated 18.1.1997 for good and valid reasons and issued a fresh advertisement dated 17.8.1997 in terms of the direction dated 11.8.1997. Therefore, the issue whether the CPEd Certificate candidates who applied against the advertisement dated 18.1.1997, were eligible or not, with reference to the said superseded advertisement dated 18.1.1997, becomes academic. The High Court could not have, therefore, directed that the CPEd Certificate candidates be considered in terms of the government directions dated 23.3.1995 after the Government direction dated 11.8.1997. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary to examine the other question as to whether the government, by an executive order, can direct the Board to deviate from the qualifications prescribed by the rules.
13. We have already taken a note of the fact that it is the Equivalence Committee within the UPSC which is competent to decide the claims for such equivalence. In the instant case, the Equivalence Committee had not found the qualification possessed by the applicant equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for the post in question. Therefore, the least that this Tribunal can do is to avoid stepping into the shoes of the Equivalence Committee and accordingly what the Honble Supreme Court has held in the aforementioned two cases, namely, State of Rajasthan and Others versus Lata Arun (supra) and Secretary, Board of Basic Education, U.P. versus Rajendra Singh and Others (supra) would hold good to the facts of the instant case as well.
14. Now, we take up the fourth issue that whether the applicant having been selected by the Selection Committee appointed by the UPSC confers any right upon him to claim appointment. It is clear that the appearance of the applicant before the Selection Board was under the interim order of this Tribunal with a clear rider permitting him to appear provisionally but not to declare his result. However, the basic issue is that whether the applicant was eligible to be considered for this post or not. The fact that the applicant was considered in compliance of the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 05.06.2012 does not confer any right upon the applicant to be appointed as the selection was subject to his eligibility. There may be a number of persons who could have been found suitable by the Selection Board, but it does not mean that without meeting the eligibility in basic qualification, they should all be appointed. In the case of Secretary, U.P.S.C. and Another versus S. Krishna Chaitanya [2011 (8) SCALE 415], the Honble Supreme Court has observed time and again that an interim order should not be of such a nature that by virtue of which a petition or an application, as the case may be, is deemed to be finally allowed or granted even at an interim stage. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:-
27. We may add here that this Court has observed time and again that an interim order should not be of such a nature that by virtue of which a petition or an application, as the case may be, is finally allowed or granted even at an interim stage. We reiterate that normally at an interlocutory stage no such relief should be granted that by virtue of which the final relief, which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is granted. We, however, find that very often courts are becoming more sympathetic to the students and by interim orders authorities are directed to permit the students to take an examination without ascertaining whether the concerned candidate had a right to take the examination. For any special reason in an exceptional case, if such a direction is given, the court must dispose of the case finally on merits before declaration of the result. In the instant case, we have found that the respondent not only took the preliminary examination but also took the main examination and also appeared for the interview by virtue of interim orders though he had no right to take any of the examinations. In our opinion, grant of such interim orders should be avoided as they not only increase work of the institution which conducts examination but also give false hope to the candidates approaching the court.
15. Having considered this issue, we again get over the fundamental fact that a person can be appointed only if he is eligible in terms of basic eligibility which the applicant is admittedly lacking. Accordingly, this issue is also decided against the applicant.
16. In so far as the fifth issue is concerned, we take a note of the additional affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 wherein it has been categorically stated that they have not allowed the candidatures of a number of persons who had applied for the post in question possessing the same qualification as the applicant possesses. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the affidavit reads as under:-
It is further submitted that in the instant case, applications of all candidates with M.Sc. (Bio-Chemistry) qualifications have been rejected by the Commission and the same has not been treated as equivalent to M.Sc. (Zoology) or Anthropology (Physical) or Botany. It is an admitted fact that those candidates are not before us. It is only the applicant who has appeared before us, which may be on account of host of reasons. However, allowing the relief to the applicant at this point of time would be grossly discriminatory to all such candidates who possess the similar qualification but whose candidatures were not allowed. We cannot overlook this factor.
17. In conclusion, we hold that the applicant is not having the basic eligibility for the job despite having been selected by the Selection Committee. The fact that the applicant is having additional qualification in the form of Ph.D in DNA Finger Printing is of no avail and the same cannot cure the basic eligibility.
18. In the result, the instant Original Application being bereft of merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. B.K. Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam) Member (A) Chairman /naresh/