Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sandeep Gupta vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 23 September, 2015
OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A.NO.3759 OF 2012
New Delhi, this the 23rd day of September, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
&
HON'BLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
................
1. Sandeep Gupta,
R/o RZH-258A, Street No.8,
Raj Nagar Part-2, Palam Colony,
New Delhli 110077
2. Paramveer Singh Negi,
R/o B-201,
Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi 110048 ..... Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj)
Vs.
UOI & others through
1. The Secretary,
DOP&T, North Block,
New Delhi
2. The Staff Selection Commission,
Northern Region,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi through its Secretary
3. The Director General of Meteorological,
Indian Meteorological Department,
Page 1 of 25
OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
2
Mausam Bhawan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi
4. The Staff Selection Commission,
Southern Region,
EVK Sampath Building, 2nd Floor,
College Road,
Chennai 600006 .......... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr.S.M.Arif for R- 2 & 4)
............
ORDER
RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):
The brief facts of the applicants' case are that on 1.10.2011 Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'SSC') issued notice (Annexure A/1) 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 Page 2 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
3syllabus of the written test were also mentioned in the said notice. The applicants, who possessed the qualification of B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics from the University of Delhi, applied for the post. On the basis of Admit Cards issued by SSC, the applicants appeared in the written test. They were declared successful in the written test. Thereafter, SSC issued letters to them to produce the requisite documents for verification and to appear for interview. Accordingly, they reported for verification of the documents and interview. The Interview Board duly verified their documents, including the educational qualification certificates, and interviewed them. SSC published the final result (Annexure A/4) on 28.3.2012. In the list of selected candidates, their names appeared at sl.nos.179 (SL\00198) and 114(SL\00254) respectively. Subsequently, SSC published a list of 24 candidates, including the applicants, whereby their candidatures were rejected for their not meeting the required educational qualification. SSC also published a corrigendum revising/modifying the list of candidates whose candidatures had been rejected for their not meeting the required educational qualification. The said revised/modified list contained the names of 24 candidates, and the applicants' names appeared at Sl.Nos.17 and 11 respectively. In response to the applications made by them Page 3 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
4under the R.T.I.Act, SSC, vide its letters dated 22.8.2012 and dated 23.8.2012 (Annexure A/5 and Annexure A/1 respectively), informed the applicants that the educational qualification of B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics as possessed by them did not meet the minimum essential educational qualification prescribed for the post of Scientific Assistant and, therefore, their candidatures were cancelled. Therefore, they filed the present O.A. seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To declare the action of respondents in rejecting the candidature of the applicants for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant in IMD as illegal and arbitrary.
ii) To declare the applicants as selected candidates for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant and direct the respondents to appoint the applicants as Scientific Assistant from due date with all consequential benefits.
iii) To quash and set aside the impugned order/letter dated 23.08.2012.
iv) To allow the OA with cost."
It is contended by the applicants that they have studied Physics as a main subject in B.Sc.(Honours) Electronics. The students, who possess B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, are eligible to get admission to M.Sc.(Physics). When candidates, who possess Diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering, are eligible for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant, it would be unreasonable to hold that the Page 4 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.5
applicants, who possess B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, are ineligible for the post of Scientific Assistant.
2. In their counter reply, respondents 2 and 4 have, inter alia, stated that with reference to Paragraph 5 of the notice of recruitment, a Clarificatory Note was also published in 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
(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.Page 5 of 25
OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
6
D) Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering in lieu of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering will be treated as fulfillment of EQ."
The interviews were conducted at various Regional Offices of SSC. The applicants attended the interview on 23.2.2012 at New Delhi Centre under the Northern Regional Office of SSC. As there was a doubt about the eligibility of some candidates called for 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 transpired that the applicants did not possess the prescribed essential educational qualification as stipulated in the notice and clarificatory note (ibid). Therefore, 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 candidates. The educational qualifications possessed by the 24 candidates were as follows:
a. Diploma in Electronics Engineering.
b. B.Tech in Electronics Engineering c. B.E. in Electronics & Instrumentation d. B.Tech in Instrumentation & Control e. B.E. in Electronics & Control Engineering Page 6 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.7
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."
The applicants have studied Electronics as main subject in B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, and Thermal Physics and Mathematical Physics in 1st and 2nd parts of B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics. Since the applicants did not fulfill the prescribed essential educational qualification, their candidatures were cancelled. No candidate with Bachelor's Degree in Electronics has been nominated for appointment. Adequate precautions/forewarnings were given by means of instructions/guidelines in the recruitment notice and interview call letters to the candidates so as to ensure that they fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility before applying for the post, and also before appearing at the written examination and interview in order to save themselves from subsequent disqualification/disappointment.
Page 7 of 25
OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
8
3. Respondent no.3 has also filed a counter reply making more or less same averments as made by respondent nos. 2 and 4.
4. In their rejoinder replies, the applicants have contended that when candidates holding Diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering are eligible for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant, the applicants, who possess B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, cannot be termed as ineligible. It has been asserted by the applicants that they have studied Physics as one of the main subjects in B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics. When a student possessing B.Sc.(Honours) Electronics is eligible to pursue M.Sc. in Physics, it cannot be said that the applicants are not eligible to be appointed to the post of Scientific Assistant merely because their Degree has been named as B.Sc.(Honours) Electronics. There is no difference in the syllabus of B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics and that of B.Sc.(Honours) Physics. Along with their rejoinder reply to respondent nos.2 & 4's counter reply, the applicants have filed copies of documents showing the eligibility qualifications for pursuing M.Sc. (Physics), and syllabus of B.Sc. (Honours) Physics and B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics.
Page 8 of 25
OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
9
5. We have heard Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, and Mr.S.M.Arif, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 4.
6. Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, invited our attention to the syllabus of B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics prescribed by the University of Delhi, and the certificates issued by the Principal of the college where the applicants studied B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, and submitted that the applicants have studied Mechanics & Strength of materials, Electricity and Magnetism, Thermal Physics, Mathematical Physics I, Mathematical Physics II and have conducted Physics Practical-I in the first year, and have studied Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics, Modern Optics and Opto-electronics, Mathematical Physics III, and have conducted Physics Practical-II in the second year, and have studied Electromagnetism and Antennas in the third year of the three-year course of B.Sc.(Honours) Electronics. Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj also invited our attention to the prospectus wherein it has been laid down that B.Sc.( Honours) Electronics is also prescribed as the minimum eligibility requirement for admission to M.Sc. (Physics). Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj also invited our attention to the courses of study for B.Sc. (Honours) Physics, and contended that the applicants have studied most Page 9 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
10of the course contents B.Sc. (Honours) Physics. It was, therefore, contended by Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj that the applicants, having studied Physics as one of the main subjects in B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, could not have been held as not possessing Bachelor's Degree in Science with Physics as one of the main subjects. To buttress his contentions, Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj placed reliance on the decisions 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; Khushbu Sharma v. UOI & others, W.P. ( C ) No.2916 of 2013, decided on 23.5.2013; and Ravinder Chauhan v. UOI & others, W.P. ( C ) No.3663 of 2011, decided on 23.7.2014.
6.1 It was also contended by Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants that SSC, after finding that the applicants fulfilled the essential educational qualification prescribed in the recruitment notice, issued admit cards and call letters to appear in the written test and interview, and also selected the applicants for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant on the basis of their performances in the written test and interview. At the stage of verification of documents, SSC also found the applicants to have possessed the essential educational qualification. In view Page 10 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
11of this, the rejection of candidatures of the applicants, after they were finally selected for appointment, is unsustainable, as being arbitrary and illegal, and hence, liable to be interfered with, and appropriate direction should be issued by the Tribunal to the respondents to appoint the applicants to the post of Scientific Assistant from due date with all consequential benefits.
7. Per contra, Mr.S.M.Arif, learned counsel appearing for SSC, submitted that the applicants possessed the qualification of B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics. They did not study Physics as one of the main subjects in B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics. Therefore, they 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 applicants, were all provisional and subject to their fulfilling the eligibility criteria, including the minimum essential educational qualification prescribed for the post. After publication of the result, and at the time of making nomination, their candidatures were scrutinized, and as it was found that the applicants did not fulfill the minimum educational essential qualification, their Page 11 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
12candidatures were rejected/cancelled. In the recruitment notice as well as interview call letters, it was clearly stipulated that if, on verification, at any time before or after the written examination and interview, it would be found that that they did not fulfill any of the eligibility conditions, their candidatures would be cancelled. Therefore, the applicants have no right to claim appointment as their candidatures were rejected on the ground of their not fulfilling the minimum essential educational qualification.
8. In Ms.Nisha's case (supra), 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 Degrees in 'B.Tech. Electrical & Electronics', 'B.Tech. Information Technology', and 'B.Tech. Instrumentation and Control', as possessed by them, were equivalent to Degrees in 'B.Tech. Electrical', 'B.Tech. Computer Science', and 'B.Tech. Electronic and Instrumentation' respectively. The Hon'ble Court, after analyzing the course contents of the Degrees/educational qualifications as possessed by the petitioners and those prescribed in the recruitment notice, and after relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Shujat Page 12 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
13Ali & others. 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.
9. In Khushbu Sharma's case (supra), the petitioner was claiming that degree of B.Tech. (Instrumentations & Control) as possessed by her was equivalent to the degree of B.Tech. (Electronics), i.e., the essential educational qualification prescribed in the recruitment notice for grant of Short Service Commission Women (Technical) - 10 Course of the Indian Army as well as for Technical-10. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, following its earlier decision in Ms.Nisha's case (supra), acceded to the claim of the petitioner.
10. In Ravinder Chauhan's case (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in paragraph 16 of the judgment, observed thus:
"16. A line of authorities have categorically ruled that Courts exercising judicial review powers should be circumspect in undertaking a "merits review" of candidates for public employment and should defer to expert opinion. Thus, in Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, (2008) 9 SCC 284 the Supreme Court stated as follows:
"29. It may be mentioned that on a clarification sought from UGC whether a candidate who possesses a Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5-3- 1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that Page 13 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.14
the subjects of Political Science and Public Administration are interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer in Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view of UGC, which is an expert in academic matters, and the Court should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a contrary view."
In B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah, (2008) 14 SCC 306, the importance of circumspection by the Courts, in the absence of proven mala fides, or illegality was underscored:
"26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show any mala fides attributed against the members of the expert body of the University. The University Authorities had also before the High Court in their objections to the writ petition taken a stand that the appellant had fully satisfied the requirement for appointment. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any mala fides either of the expert body of the University or of the University Authorities and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it would be difficult to sustain the orders of the High Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations cannot be said to be illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction."
The position was stated even more emphatically in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others v. Dr. B. S. Mahajan & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 434, as follows:
"...it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its Page 14 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.15
procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
11. 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 Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 11.1 In the present case, the recruitment notice, vide paragraph 5, stipulated the minimum essential educational qualification (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 Page 15 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.16
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 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."
11.2 With reference to the above paragraph 5 of the recruitment notice, the SSC issued and also got published a Clarificatory Note (annexed to the Original Application, page Page 16 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
17
62) 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 17 of 25
OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
1811.3 The question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the applicants, who possess the Degree in B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, can be said to have possessed Bachelor's Degree in Science with Physics as one of the main subjects, which has been prescribed as the minimum essential educational qualification for selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant in Indian Meteorological Department. Although we have found from the syllabuses of B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, and B.Sc.(Honours) Physics, that the applicants have studied some of the course contents of B.Sc.(Honours) Physics in the three-year course of B.Sc. (Honours)Electronics, yet it cannot be said that they have studied Physics as a main subject in B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics inasmuch as they have studied Electronics as main subject and some papers of the subject of Physics in B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics. Therefore, in our considered view, the applicants having not studied Physics as a main subject in B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, cannot be held to be eligible for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant in terms of the recruitment notice and the clarificatory note (ibid). When the Bachelor's Degree in Science with Physics as one of the main subjects' has been clearly prescribed as the minimum essential educational qualification, and when the applicants Page 18 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
19are found to have studied Electronics as main subject and some of the papers of Physics in three-year course of B.Sc. (Honours) Electronics, they cannot be said to have fulfilled the minimum essential educational qualification prescribed for the post of Scientific Assistant. Thus, having failed to fulfill the essential educational qualification, the applicants are ineligible for the post of Scientific Assistant. This view of ours is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University, represented by its Registrar & others, (2014) 3 SCC 767.
14. In Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput's case (supra), Gulbarga University (for short, 'University') issued notification inviting applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Lecturer 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 Page 19 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
20passed 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 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, inter alia, contending that Masters' 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 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 Page 20 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
21prayer 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 Masters' 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 Page 21 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
22Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court allowed the 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 Masters' 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- Page 22 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
23Shivanand 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 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, Masters' 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 Masters' 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 Page 23 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.24
Commerce, a Masters' degree in Commerce would not be relevant for appointment in Mathematics or for that matter in MCA. There may be a situation in which Masters' 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 Masters' degree in those subjects as holder of Masters' 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 Masters' 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 Masters' 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 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 Masters' of Computer Application."
15. As regards the decisions in Ms.Nisha's case (supra) and Khushbu Sharma's case (supra), which were relied on by Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the question that arose for consideration was whether the petitioners in those cases possessed the qualifications equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for Page 24 of 25 OA 3759/12 Sandeep Gupta & anr. V. UOI & ors.
25recruitment to the posts. As regards the observations in Ravinder Chauhan's case (supra), to which our attention was invited by Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, we have found that the rejection of the candidatures of the applicants was not based on any opinion expressed by any expert body. The applicants' candidatures were rejected by SSC when it found that the applicants did not fulfill the minimum essential educational qualification prescribed for the post. Therefore, the above decisions cited by Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel, are of no help to the case of the applicants.
16. In the light of our above discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of SSC rejecting the candidatures of the applicants on the ground of their not meeting the minimum essential educational qualification for the post in question. Therefore, the O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
17. Resultantly, the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SUDHIR KUMAR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AN
Page 25 of 25