Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shikhag Mishra vs Staff Selection Commission on 2 November, 2015
OA 2907/12 1 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A.NO.2907 OF 2012
New Delhi, this the 2nd day of November, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AND
HON'BLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
..........
Shikha G.Mishra,
C/o Joginider Singh,
R/o 200/1, Ground Floor,
Munirka Village,
New Delhi 110067 ........... Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms.Reeta Chaudhary)
Vs.
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Regional Director (SR), Staff Selection Commission,
EVK Sampath Building, 2nd Floor,
College Road,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600006
3. Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission,
Northern Region,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
4. Indian Meteorological Department, through its Director General,
Lodhi Road, Block M,
Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi 110003
5. Integral University, through its Chancellor,
Dasauli, PO-Basha,
Kursi Road, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh 226026 ........ Respondents.
(By Advocates: Mr.S.M.Arif for R-1, & Ms. Pooja Wahal for R-4)
..........
Page 1 of 19
OA 2907/12 2 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors
ORDER
RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):
The brief facts of the applicant's case are that on 1.10.2011, Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'SSC') issued notice inviting applications from eligible persons for filling up 465 (UR-230, OBC- 128, SC-70, ST-37) vacancies in the post of Scientific Assistant in Indian Meteorological Department. The said notice stipulated 'Bachelor's Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the subject)/Computer Science/Information Technology/Computer Applications or Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering from a recognized Institution/University or equivalent' as the minimum essential educational qualification. The recruitment examination comprised written test and interview. The details of the syllabus of written test were also mentioned in the said notice. The applicant, who acquired the qualification of B.Tech (Electronics Engineering) from Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow, applied for selection and appointment to the said post. On the basis of Admit Card issued by SSC, the applicant appeared in the written test. She was declared successful in the written test. Thereafter, SSC issued letter calling upon her to produce the requisite documents for verification and to appear for interview. Accordingly, she reported for verification of the documents and for interview. The Interview Board duly verified her documents, including the educational qualification certificates, and interviewed her. SSC published the final result on 28.3.2012. In the list of Page 2 of 19 OA 2907/12 3 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors selected candidates, her name appeared at SL\00006. Subsequently, SSC published a list of 24 candidates, including the applicant, whereby the candidatures of those candidates were rejected for their not meeting the required educational qualification. Thereafter, the applicant made a representation dated 25.7.2012 questioning the rejection of her candidature, and requesting SSC to consider her candidature and to take further action. There being no response, she filed the present Original Application seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Allow the present petition.
b. quash the rejection list published on the website of the
respondents wherein the name of the petitioner was included.
c. direct the respondents to issue the appointment letter to the petitioner and take her in the job after completing other formalities.
d. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
2. In their counter reply, respondents 2 and 3 have, inter alia, stated that with reference to Paragraph 5 of the notice of recruitment, a Clarificatory Note was published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 01.10.2011, wherein it was clarified as under:
"A) Only such candidates who possess the qualification below AND who have passed 10+2 Examination from a recognized Board or equivalent with Physics and Mathematics as subjects will be eligible to apply. B) Only the following qualifications from a recognized Institution/University or equivalent with at least 60% marks will meet the minimum educational qualifications:-
(i) Bachelor's Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the main subjects).
(ii) Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science
(iii) Bachelor's Degree in Information Technology Page 3 of 19 OA 2907/12 4 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors
(iv) Bachelor's Degree in Computer Application
(v) Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering.
C) The qualifying Degree or Diploma must be of at least three years duration. Candidates with B.Tech or B.E. in Electronics and Communication Engineering in lieu of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering will be considered eligible for the post. D) Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering in lieu of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering will be treated as fulfillment of EQ."
Interviews were conducted at various Regional Offices of SSC. The applicant attended the interview on 17.3.2012 at New Delhi Centre under the Northern Regional Office of SSC. As there was a doubt about the eligibility of some candidates called for the interview, such candidates were allowed by the Regional Offices on provisional basis, and a decision had to be taken by the Headquarters office of SSC. After announcement of the final result, and before nomination of the selected candidates to the user Department, a detailed scrutiny was carried out, and it was found that the applicant did not possess the prescribed essential educational qualification as stipulated in the recruitment notice and clarificatory note. Therefore, a clarification was sought by SSC (SR), vide its letter dated 17.5.2012 from the headquarters office of SSC with regard to the educational qualification of 24 candidates. The educational qualifications possessed by the said 24 candidates were as follows:
a. Diploma in Electronics Engineering.
b. B.Tech in Electronics Engineering c. B.E. in Electronics & Instrumentation Page 4 of 19 OA 2907/12 5 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors d. B.Tech in Instrumentation & Control e. B.E. in Electronics & Control Engineering f. B.Sc. (Hons.) in Electronics.
The headquarters office of SSC, after consulting the user Department, stated in its letter dated 29.6.2012 as follows:
"............User Department has mentioned that the consideration of equivalency amongst different courses of study needs to be evaluated with reference to specific requirement of the recruiting department and duties and responsibilities to be performed by the Cadre. IMD felt that the set of additional EQs mentioned vide SSC letter of even number dated 30.5.2012 may not be meeting the requirement of the department. Keeping in view the observation of the User Department, it has been decided by the Commission that the candidature of these 24 candidates may be rejected as mentioned in your letter dated 17.5.2012."
No candidate possessing B.Tech. (Electronics Engineering) has been nominated for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant in pursuance of the recruitment notice. Since the applicant did not fulfill the prescribed essential educational qualification, her candidature was cancelled. Adequate precautions/forewarnings were given by means of instructions/guidelines in the recruitment notice and interview call letters so that the candidates should ensure that they fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility before applying for the post, and also before appearing in the written examination and interview in order to save themselves from subsequent disqualification/ disappointment.
3. Respondent no.4 has filed a counter reply making more or less same averments as made by respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Page 5 of 19
OA 2907/12 6 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors
4. A counter reply has also been filed by respondent no.5-Integral University stating that it is not in a position to throw any light whether the Degree obtained by the applicant is equivalent to the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Scientific Assistant in the Indian Meteorological Department.
5. In her rejoinder reply, the applicant has asserted to have fulfilled the educational criterion for the post of Scientific Assistant as prescribed in the recruitment notice and clarificatory notice dated 1.10.2011. When a candidate having a degree either in Electronics & Communication Engineering is considered eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant, she cannot be declared ineligible. It has also been asserted by the applicant that B.Tech. in Electronics Engineering is equivalent to B.Tech in Electronics & Communication Engineering, and/or B.Tech in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering. The course contents of the said three disciplines at degree level are identical. In support of her contention, the applicant has filed a copy of the syllabus adopted by G.B.Technical University, Lucknow, for B.Tech. Electronics Engineering, B.Tech. Electronics & Communication Engineering, and B.Tech. Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering. A copy of the letter dated 14.9.2012 issued by G.B.Technical University, Lucknow, has also been filed by the applicant along with her rejoinder reply. In the said letter dated 14.9.2012, it has been stated that the syllabus of B.Tech in Electronics Page 6 of 19 OA 2907/12 7 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors Engineering, B.Tech in Electronics & Communication Engineering, and B.Tech Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering is identical.
6. We have perused the records, and have heard Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. S.M.Arif, learned counsel appearing for SSC, and Ms.Pooja Wahal for respondent no.4.
7. Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, invited our attention to the syllabus of B.Tech. in Electronics Engineering, B.Tech. in Electronics & Communication Engineering, and B.Tech. in Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering, and submitted that the course contents of all the said three disciplines being identical, the applicant, possessing the qualification of B.Tech. in Electronics Engineering, fulfilled the essential educational qualification as prescribed in the recruitment notice and clarificatory note and, therefore, rejection of her candidature is unsustainable. To buttress her contention, Ms.Reeta Chaudhary placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ms.Nisha, etc. v. Union of India and others, etc., W.P.( C ) No. 6100 of 2012 & connected writ petitions, decided on 26.11.2012. 7.1 It was also contended by Ms. Reeta Chaudary, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that SSC, after finding that the applicant fulfilled the essential educational qualification prescribed in the recruitment notice, issued admit card and call letter to her to appear in the written test and interview, and also selected the applicant for appointment to the post of Page 7 of 19 OA 2907/12 8 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors Scientific Assistant on the basis of her performance in the written test and interview. At the stage of verification of documents, SSC also found the applicant to have possessed the essential educational qualification. In the above circumstances, the rejection of candidature of the applicant, after she was finally selected for appointment, is arbitrary and illegal, and hence, liable to be interfered with by the Tribunal.
8. Per contra, Mr.S.M.Arif, learned counsel appearing for the SSC, submitted that the applicant possessed the qualification of B.Tech in Electronics Engineering. Therefore, she cannot be said to have fulfilled the essential educational qualification in terms of the recruitment notice, and the clarificatory note issued with reference to Paragraph 5 of the recruitment notice. In terms of the recruitment notice, the issuance of admit card and interview letter by SSC, and the selection of the applicant, were all provisional and subject to her fulfilling the eligibility criteria, including the minimum essential educational qualification. After publication of the result, and at the time of making nomination, her candidature was scrutinized, and as it was found that the applicant did not fulfill the educational essential qualification, her candidature was rejected/cancelled. In the recruitment notice as well as interview call letter, it was clearly stipulated that if, on verification, at any time before or after the written examination and interview, it would be found that she did not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, her candidature would be cancelled. Therefore, the applicant has Page 8 of 19 OA 2907/12 9 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors no right to claim appointment as her candidature was rejected on the ground of her not fulfilling the essential educational qualification.
9. In Ms.Nisha's case (supra), relied on by Ms.Reeta Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the recruitment notice prescribed Degree in 'B.Tech. Electrical', or 'B.Tech. Computer Science', or 'B.Tech. Electronics and Instrumentation', as the essential educational qualification. The respective petitioners were claiming that the qualifications of 'B.Tech. Electrical & Electronics', 'B.Tech. Information Technology', and 'B.Tech. Instrumentation and Control', as possessed by them, were equivalent to 'B.Tech. Electrical', 'B.Tech. Computer Science', and 'B.Tech. Electronics and Instrumentation'. The Hon'ble High Court, after analyzing the course contents of the educational qualifications, as possessed by the petitioners, and that of the educational qualifications, as prescribed in the recruitment notice, and after relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali & othes. V. UOI & others, AIR 1975 SC 1631, overruled the opinion of the experts and held that the petitioners were possessing the equivalent Degrees/educational qualifications and were, thus, eligible for selection and appointment to the post advertised in the recruitment notice.
10. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival contentions, and we do not find any substance in the contentions of Ms.Reeta Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
Page 9 of 19
OA 2907/12 10 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors 10.1 In the present case, the recruitment notice, vide paragraph 5,
stipulated the minimum essential educational qualifications (as on 28.10.2011) for the post of Scientific Assistant in Indian Meteorological Department, as follows:
"Bachelor's Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the subject)/Computer Science/Information Technology/ Computer Applications or Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering from a recognized Institution/University or equivalent.
NOTE-I The qualifying Degree or diploma referred above should be in First Class (60% marks) or 6.75 CGPA on a 10 point scale.
NOTE-II The qualifying Degree or Diploma referred above must be of three (3) years duration.
NOTE-III The applicant must have passed 10+2 Examination from a Recognized Board or equivalent in Science with Physics and Mathematics as core subjects.
NOTE-IV: As per Ministry of Human Resource Development Notification No. 44 dated 01.03.1995 published in Gazette of India edition dated 08.04.1995, the Degree obtained through open Universities/Distance Education Mode needs to be recognized by Distance Education Council, IGNOU. Accordingly, unless such Degrees had been recognized for the period when the candidates acquired the relevant qualification, they will not be accepted for the purpose of Educational Qualification.
NOTE-V: Candidates who have not acquired/will not acquire the educational qualification as on the closing date of receipt of application will not be eligible and need not apply. NOTE-VI : All candidates who are called for appearing at the Interview will be required to produce the relevant Certificate in Original such as Mark sheets, Provisional Certificate, etc. as proof of having acquired the minimum educational qualification on or before the closing date failing which the candidature of such candidate will be cancelled by the Commission.
NOTE-VII: Ex-S who have done various courses from Armed Forces which are certified by competent Authority that they are Page 10 of 19 OA 2907/12 11 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors equivalent to Bachelor's Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the subject)/Computer Science/Information Technology/Computer Applications or Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering are eligible to appear in the Examination."
10.2 With reference to paragraph 5 of the recruitment notice, ibid, the SSC issued and also got published a Clarificatory Note in the Employment News/Rozgar, which is reproduced below:
" Subject:- Recruitment of Scientific Assistant in Indian Meteorological Department, 2011.
File No.1/19/2010. P & P-II: Refer Notice published in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 01.10.2011 Para-5 Minimum Essential Educational Qualifications (as on 28.10.2011). It is clarified that:
A) Only such candidates who possess the qualification below AND who have passed 10+2 Examination from a recognized Board or equivalent with Physics and Mathematics as subjects will be eligible to apply. B) Only the following qualifications from a recognized Institution/University or equivalent with at least 60% marks will meet the minimum educational qualifications:-
(i) Bachelor's Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the main subjects).
(ii) Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science
(iii) Bachelor's Degree in Information Technology
(iv) Bachelor's Degree in Computer Application
(v) Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering.
C) The qualifying Degree or Diploma must be of at least three years duration. Candidates with B.Tech or B.E. in Electronics and Communication Engineering in lieu of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering will be considered eligible for the post.
D) Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering in lieu of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering will be treated as fulfillment of EQ."Page 11 of 19
OA 2907/12 12 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors 10.3 The question that arises for consideration in this case is as to
whether the applicant, who possesses the qualification of B.Tech in Electronics Engineering, can be said to have fulfilled the essential educational qualification for selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant in the Indian Meteorological Department. Though we have found from the statements of marks issued by Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow, to the applicant in respect of the four-year B.Tech. in Electronics Engineering that the applicant has studied some of the core subjects of B.Tech. in Electronics & Communication Engineering and/or B.Tech. in Electronics & Telecommunications as per the syllabus prescribed by the said University from the academic session 2009-10 for the second year, and from the academic session 2010-11 for the third year of B.Tech. in the said disciplines, yet it cannot be said that she has acquired the qualification of B.Tech. in Electronics & Communication Engineering. If the subjects and/or course contents of B.Tech. in Electronics Engineering, B.Tech. in Electronics & Communication Engineering, and B.Tech. in Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering were same, the University would not have conducted three different and distinct courses, and awarded different and distinct Bachelor's degrees to the students in those three disciplines. Furthermore, it is found from the statements of marks filed by her along with the O.A. that the applicant was admitted to the course of 4-
year B.Tech. in Electronics Engineering under the U.P.Technical University, Lucknow, during the academic session 2003-04, and she completed the Page 12 of 19 OA 2907/12 13 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors course during the academic session 2006-07. Thus, the syllabus for B.Tech. in Electronics Engineering, B.Tech. in Electronics & Communication Engineering, and B.Tech. in Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering as adopted by the U.P.Technical University from the academic session 2009- 10 hardly improves her claim that she possessed the essential educational qualification prescribed in the recruitment notice and clarificatory note, ibid. Therefore, in our considered view, the applicant having not possessed the qualification of B.Tech. in Electronics & Communication Engineering, as stipulated in the recruitment notice and clarificatory note, cannot be held to be eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant in Indian Meteorological Department. Furthermore, had the qualification of B.Tech. in Electronics been stipulated in the recruitment notice and clarificatory note, ibid, as the essential educational qualification for the post of Scientific Assistant in the Indian Meteorological Department, then persons possessing the qualification of B.Tech. in Electronics, like the applicant, would have made applications for the post. Acceptation of the applicant's plea would amount to changing the essential educational qualification stipulated in the recruitment notice and clarificatory note, which is impermissible.
11. In Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University, represented by its Registrar & others, (2014) 3 SCC 767, Gulbarga University (for short, University) issued notification inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Lecturer Page 13 of 19 OA 2907/12 14 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors in Masters in Computer Application (for short, 'MCA'). The minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA was good academic record with at least 55% of marks or an equivalent grade at the Masters Degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Respondent-Shivanand, appellant-Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput, besides other persons, offered their candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA. Appellant-Ganpath claimed to have passed the M.Sc. Examination in Mathematics in First Class with Distinction. Respondent-Shivanand possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA. The University constituted a Board of Appointment for selecting suitable candidates. It consisted of experts holding high positions in academic field, including a Professor each from University of Pune, Bombay University, and Kuvempu University. The Board of Appointment interviewed the candidates and ultimately made a recommendation for the appointment of appellant- Ganpath, who admittedly did not have a post-graduate degree in MCA, but had a Masters Degree in Mathematics. The recommendation so made was placed for consideration before the Syndicate which approved his appointment. Respondent-Shivanand challenged the aforesaid selection and appointment in a writ petition filed before the Honble High Court of Karnataka, inter alia, contending that Master's Degree in Mathematics would not make Ganpath eligible in terms of the advertisement and, therefore, his selection and appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA Page 14 of 19 OA 2907/12 15 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors was illegal. Respondent-Shivanand further pointed out that since he possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA and fulfilled all other conditions, he ought to have been selected for appointment. Ganpath as also the University resisted the prayer of Shivanand and contended that the expression relevant subject used in the notification would mean any subject which is relevant for the purpose of holding the post of Lecturer in MCA. It was contended that Master's Degree in Mathematics is a degree in the relevant subject and, thus, Ganpath possessed the basic qualification. While defending the appointment, it was further contended on behalf of Ganpath that in the syllabus for MCA, Mathematics is the core subject and, therefore, a candidate having a post-graduate degree in Mathematics is eligible for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. It was also contended on behalf of Ganpath that when an expert body, like the Board of appointment, had found that a post-graduate degree in Mathematics is a relevant subject for the purpose of adjudging the eligibility and the same having been approved by the Syndicate of the University, a body consisting of experts, the same was not fit to be interfered with by the Hon'ble High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge considered the submissions, dismissed the writ petition, and upheld the appointment of Ganpath. Shivanand, aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal, and both the parties reiterated the same contentions. The submission made by Shivanand found favour with the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Page 15 of 19 OA 2907/12 16 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors appeal and quashed the appointment of Ganpath as Lecturer in MCA. The learned counsel appearing for Ganpath contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Mathematics is a relevant subject for MCA course and, therefore, a person holding post-graduate degree in Mathematics is eligible for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. In Gulbarga University, different Mathematics subjects are taught in MCA and, therefore, it cannot be said that a person possessing Master's degree in Mathematics is not eligible for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. Whether a particular qualification is relevant or not for holding a post is best decided by the experts concerned and Mathematics, having been recognized as a relevant subject for MCA course not only by the University but by the Board of Appointment consisting of eminent academicians from various Universities, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court ought not to have substituted their opinion. In support of the submission, reliance was placed on B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R.Venkatasubbaiah, (2008) 14 SCC 306, and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, (2008) 9 SCC 284. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent-Shivanand contended that a person holding the post-graduate degree in Mathematics is not eligible for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. The Board of Appointment misdirected itself in going into the question as to whether Mathematics is a relevant subject or not in MCA. The opinion of the Board of Appointment, as approved by the Syndicate, is not that sacrosanct so as to deprive the Hon'ble High Court of the power of Page 16 of 19 OA 2907/12 17 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors judicial review. Dismissing the appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"21. As is evident from the advertisement, applications were invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the post of Lecturer in MCA. The advertisement requires post-graduate degree in the relevant subject. The relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean post-graduate degree in MCA. In our opinion, for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Master's degree in the Mathematics is not the relevant subject. The advertisement requires Masters degree in relevant subject and not appropriate subject. In the present case, the Board of appointment has not stated that post-graduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant subject for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent to a post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. This, in our opinion, was beyond the power of the Board of appointment.
22. It shall not make any difference even if Mathematics is taught in the Master's of Computer Application course. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, gravely erred in upholding the contention of Ganpat and the University that relevant subject would mean such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA course. If Mathematics is taught in a post- graduate course in Commerce, a Master's degree in Commerce would not be relevant for appointment in Mathematics or for that matter in MCA. There may be a situation in which Master's degree in MCA is differently christened and such a degree may be considered relevant but it would be too much to say that a candidate having post- graduate degree in any of the subjects taught in MCA would make the holders of a Master's degree in those subjects as holder of Master's degree in Computer Application and, therefore, eligible for appointment.
23. The language of the advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any ambiguity and, hence, it has to be given effect to. Since the appellant Ganpat did not have a Master's degree in Computer Application, in our opinion, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. We are aghast to see that when a candidate possessing Master's degree in MCA is available, the Board of appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore, illegal and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is Page 17 of 19 OA 2907/12 18 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors that the University acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpat as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside his appointment. In our opinion, an unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the recommendee. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer in Master's of Computer Application."
12. As regards the decision in Ms.Nisha's case (supra), which was relied on by Ms. Reeta Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the question that arose for consideration was whether the petitioners in those cases possessed the qualifications equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the posts. In the present case, the applicant's candidature was rejected by SSC when it found that she did not fulfill the minimum essential educational qualification prescribed in the recruitment notice and clarificatory note for selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant in the Indian Meteorological Department. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput's case (supra), we find that the decision in Ms.Nisha's case (supra) is of no help to the applicant in the present case.
13. In the light of our above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the decision taken by SSC rejecting the candidature of the applicant on the ground of her not meeting the minimum essential educational qualification prescribed in the recruitment notice and the clarificatory note for selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Page 18 of 19 OA 2907/12 19 Shikha G.Mishra v. UOI & ors Assistant in the Indian Meteorological Department. Therefore, the O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
14. Resultantly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SUDHIR KUMAR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AN
Page 19 of 19