Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Danish Jamal vs Union Public Service Commission on 23 February, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench:New Delhi
OA No.520/2014
Reserved on : 11.09.2015.
Pronounced on:23.02.2016
Hon'ble Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Shri Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
Danish Jamal S/o Sri Abdul Wahid,
Age about 35 years
R/o 93, Pura Dhakur Kydganj,
Allahabad-211003. ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri V.K.Ojha)
Versus
1. Union Public Service Commission
Through Chairman/Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
& Training, North Block,
New Delhi. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri J.B.Mudgil)
ORDER
Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
The applicant of this OA has approached this Tribunal as he is aggrieved by rejection of his candidature for the post of Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, in short), (OA No.520/2014) (2) under the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, after he had applied in pursuance to the Advertisement published in the Employment News dated 28.09.2013, in respect of the said vacancy. In fact 85 posts of Public Prosecutors were advertised, and, out of them, 27 posts were reserved for OBC Category, 11 posts for SCs, 7 posts for STs, 4 posts for PH Category, and the remaining 40 posts were available for Unreserved Category. The essential qualification mentioned for these posts was a Degree in Law from a recognized University, and seven years' experience of practice at the Bar in conducting criminal cases.
2. The applicant is having Ll.B. & Ll.M. Degrees from the University of Allahabad, and he is enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of U.P., and claims to have experience of practice of more than 10 years in criminal and civil cases at the District Courts, Allahabad, U.P. He has claimed that he has dealt with the cases of both criminal and civil nature in all the Courts, including the Court of Sessions, Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class Judicial Magistrate and the Courts of Civil Judges, and considered him to be eligible for the post of Public Prosecutor in the CBI. The applicant duly submitted his Application Form on online basis on 09.10.2013, and was issued a Registration Number and (OA No.520/2014) (3) generated his registration details. It has been submitted that as per the instructions in the Advertisement, the experience certificate issued from the Competent Authority was only required to be submitted along with online application, and no other documents regarding educational qualifications etc. were required to be submitted by the applicant. The Advertisement concerned had even given a performa for obtaining experience certificate, which the applicant obtained from the District Bar Association, Allahabad, and also got it countersigned by the Learned District Judge, Allahabad District Court (Annexure A-7), and annexed the same along with the Application Form.
3. Since it was expected that the short-listing of the candidates was to be on the basis of candidates possessing the higher educational qualifications, since he possessed the essential qualifications, the applicant expected to be called for the interview. However, he was surprised to learn that several applicants having less experience than him had been issued call letters by the Respondent No.1 for the interview, but that he was not issued such a call letter. The applicant then spoke to somebody in the Office of Respondent No.1, who informed him that since in his experience certificate it was not specifically (OA No.520/2014) (4) mentioned that he has been practicing in criminal cases, they had declined to entertain his candidature.
4. The applicant has submitted that though he had requested the District Bar Association, Allahabad, to issue an experience certificate in the specified format, but he had no authority to give directions to the District Bar Association to issue their Certificate in a particular manner only. The applicant has also submitted that since he was not asked to submit any other details regarding educational qualifications etc. along with the Application Form, except the experience certificate, prima facie, the Respondent No.1 was obliged to consider the information provided by him in the Application Form as correct, and he has been seriously prejudiced by the Respondent No.1 not calling him even for an interview for the post concerned.
5. At the time of filing of this OA, the interviews were yet to be conducted, and he had, therefore, prayed for being allowed to be interviewed by the Respondent No.1. In saying so, he had taken the ground that the actions of the respondents in rejecting his Application Form were frivolous, hyper-technical, against the principles of natural justice, and arbitrary. He had taken further ground that when he had stated in his Application Form that he is practicing in criminal and civil cases, it has to be well understood (OA No.520/2014) (5) that an Advocate practicing at the District Courts level must be practicing in both criminal and civil cases, and since the applicant had no authority to direct the District Bar Association to issue experience certificate in a particular manner, after providing them the prescribed format, therefore, it was submitted that there is enough material before the Respondent No.1 to ascertain and verify about his specialization, which they did not do. It was also submitted that the Respondents had also failed to take into account his higher educational qualification of Ll.M., and by calling the short-listed candidates, who possessed less experience/qualifications in comparison to him, he has been denied of his right of equality and equal opportunity guaranteed by the Constitution. In the result, the applicant had prayed for the following reliefs and the interim relief:
"Relief:
8.1 The Respondent No.1 may be directed to call the applicant for the interview to the post of Public Prosecutor (Vacancy No.13091410228) CBI, Department of Personnel & Training.
8.2 Direct the respondent no.1 to keep one post of Public Prosecutor (Vacancy No.13091410228) CBI, vacant till the final disposal of this O.A. 8.3 Costs of the proceedings be allowed. 8.4 Any other order (s) as deemed fit and proper to secure the ends of justice may be passed."
"9. Interim relief:
(OA No.520/2014) (6) 8.1 The applicant prays that he may be permitted to sit in the interview going to commence from 11.02.2013 onwards to the outcome of the present O.A."
6. When the case came up for admission on 12.02.2014, the Bench, on that day, including one of us, had directed the respondents to allow the applicant to appear at the relevant interview provisionally, subject to the outcome of this OA, and further subject to the condition that his participation at such interview will not create any right or equity in his favour, and that his result will be kept in a sealed cover, till the disposal of the OA, and further that his result will not be announced without permission of the Tribunal.
7. The respondents filed their counter reply on 08.07.2014 on behalf of the Respondent No.1 only, and no counter reply on behalf of Respondent No.2 (Union of India) was filed. Through this counter reply of Respondent No.1, it was submitted that through the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the cases of Union of India and Another vs. T. Sunderaman & Ors. Page 28 in Civil Appeal No.44/90, M.P. Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Another, JT (1994) 6 SC 302, and Govt. of A.P. vs. P. Dilip Kumar & Another, JT (1993) 2 SC 138, it has been reiterated that it is always open to the (OA No.520/2014) (7) recruiting agency to screen candidates due for consideration, at the threshold of the process of selection, by prescribing higher eligibility qualifications, so that the field of selection can be narrowed down, with the ultimate objective of promoting candidates with higher qualifications to enter the zone of consideration, so far as this short-listing of candidates is done on some rational and reasonable basis. It was thereafter explained that the Respondent-UPSC had received 2226 applications for 85 posts concerned as follows:
Sl.No. Category No. of posts No. of applicants 1. ST 7 72 2. SC 11 472 3. OBC 27 770 4. GEN 40 912 5. PH(Low Vision) 3* 11 6. PH(Orthopaedically 1* 28 Handicapped Total 85 2226 *Reservation is Horizontal for PH"
8. It was, therefore, submitted that the Respondent-No.1 Commission had fixed the following criteria for short-listing of candidates under various categories for the purpose of limiting the number of candidates to be named for interviews, and, (OA No.520/2014) (8) accordingly, issued call letters for short-listed candidates, as follows:
S.No. Category Criteria fixed for No. of No. of
short-listing Vacanc candidates
y called.
1 PH(L.V) EQ(A) + EQ(B) 3* 06
2 PH(OH) Criteria-1:
EQ(A) raised to LLM +
EQ(B)
Criteria-2:
EQ(A) + EQ(B) raised 1* 14
to 10 years
3. ST EQ(A) + EQ(B) 7 37
4 SC Criteria-1:
EQ(A) raised to LLM +
EQ(B)
Criteria-2:
EQ(A) + EQ(B) raised 11 114
to 10 years
5. OBC -do- 27 172
6. General -do- 40 151
Total 85 494
9. It was further submitted that the applications of those candidates, who did not meet the above short-listing criteria, were rejected under the "Better Candidates Available" category.
(OA No.520/2014) (9)
10. It was further submitted that though the applicant is an OBC candidate, and has claimed experience of 10 years and two months, however, the experience certificate issued by the District Bar Association, Allahabad did not specify his having experience in handling criminal cases. Therefore, his application was rejected, as lacking essential qualifications, and he was not called for the interview, under the short-listing criteria adopted uniformly in respect of all the similarly placed applicants under this category. It was further submitted that the respondent had already highlighted this aspect through Note-I and Note-II in the Notification of the Advertisement, which had stated as follow:
"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: IN THE EVENT OF NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS BEING LARGE, THE COMMISSION WILLO ADOPT SHORT LISTING CRITERIA TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES TO BE CALLED FOR INTERVIEW TO A RESPONSIBLE NUMBER BY ANY OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:
a) On the basis of higher educational qualifications than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement.
b) On the basis of higher experience in the relevant
field than the minimum prescribed in the
advertisement.
c) By counting experience before or after the
acquisition of essential qualifications.
d) By holding a recruitment test THE CANDIDATES SHOULD, THEREFORE, MENTION ALL HIS/HER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCES IN THE (OA No.520/2014) (10) RELLEVANT FIELD OVER AND OVER THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS."
11. It was submitted that the fixation of criteria and short-listing of candidates have been done as per the standard procedure, and in accordance with the Notification issued, and that the Respondent-Commission was well within their rights to adopt a method for short-listing the candidates, and calling them for interview. All the averments made by the applicant in the OA were thereafter denied, and it was submitted that the applicant had no practice, and the uploaded experience certificate did not specify his possessing experience in handling criminal matters, which was the essential requirement for issuance of call letters for interviews for the posts concerned. The grounds taken by the applicant were denied, and it was submitted that though the applicant has been provisionally interviewed in compliance of the interim directions of this Tribunal, he is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for in the OA, and the OA is liable to be dismissed.
12. The observations of the Supreme Court in UPSC and Another vs. S.Krishna Chaitanya, (2011) 14 SCC 227 were pointed out, based upon which it was submitted that the entire administrative machinery of the respondents had been thrown completely out of gear due to 62 such extra candidates having (OA No.520/2014) (11) been required to be provisionally interviewed, due to interim orders of this Tribunal, and therefore, it was prayed that the OA may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
13. Heard. Both the learned counsel very vehemently argued on the lines of their pleadings. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case.
14. The applicant had properly registered as a candidate as per the information provided by him in the online recruitment form, claiming more than 10 years' experience at District Courts, Allahabad. However, it is seen that the respondents are right in submitting that the applicant's experience certificate at Annexure A-7 only stated that the applicant was practicing as an Advocate since 2003 at the District Courts, Allahabad, and it did not specifically mention about his experience in handling criminal cases in a court of law.
15. Therefore, when in the process of sifting through the 2226 applications for short-listing candidates for 85 posts, the respondents have taken action as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. T.Sunderaman & Ors. (supra), M.P. Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar & Another, (supra) and Govt. of A.P. vs. P. Dilip Kumar & Another (supra), we do not (OA No.520/2014) (12) find that the applicant has been able to make out any prima facie case of discrimination or non-application of mind on the part of the respondents, while they were so short-listing the candidates for being interviewed for filling up the relevant posts.
16. In the result, we find no merit in the OA, and bowing down before the law as laid down and observations made by the Apex Court in the above-mentioned cases, the OA is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Sudhir Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
/kdr/
(OA No.520/2014)
(13)