Madras High Court
Dr.S.Rajavelu vs Chairman on 7 October, 2005
Author: P.K.Misra
Bench: P.K.Misra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07/10/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.MISRA
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.KANNADASAN
W.P.No.22753 of 2005
and
WPMP No.24800 of 2005
Dr.S.Rajavelu .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
New Delhi 110 069.
2.Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
New Delhi 110 069.
3.Director General of Archaeological
Survey of India,
10 Janpath,
New Delhi 110 001.
4.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records of the order of the 4th respondent dated 28.4.2005 in O.A. No.720 of
2005, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to call and
consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Superintending
Archaeologist in the Archaeological Surey of India by making a fresh
selection.
!For Petitioner : Mr.Karthik Rajan
^For Respondents-1&2 : Mr.M.T.Arunan
Addl.Central Government
Standing Counsel
Respondent -3 : Mr.R.Jamal Nazeem,
Sr. Central Government
Standing Counsel.
:JUDGMENT
N. KANNADASAN, J.
The above writ petition is filed as against the order dated 28.4.20 05 passed in O.A.No.720 of 2004 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Branch.
2. The petitioner has filed an application before the Tribunal seeking a direction as against the respondents 1 and 2 to furnish the records pertaining to the interview for the post of 'Superintending Archaeologist' and consequently direct them to call for the applicant for the interview to the post of 'Superintending Archaeologist'. The Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as 'Commission') issued notification to fill up the post of 'Superintending Archaeologist' in the Department of Archaeological Survey of India in respect of four posts and for a consequential relief. Out of four posts, one post was reserved for OBC to which the petitioner belongs to. One of the qualification as prescribed in the said notification is as follows:-
"Diploma in Archaeology from the Archaeological Survey of India with three years field experience or field experience of at least five years in Archaeology and knowledge of Monuments and Antiquities."
3. The Commission has received as many as 169 applications and as per the Commission, 15 candidates alone have fulfilled the said qualifications and all of them were called for interview which took place on 2.8.2004.
4. The petitioner was not called for the interview on the ground that he has not completed five years of field experience in Archaeology and knowledge of Monuments and Antiquities, even though he has satisfied with the said qualification on the ground that he has gained experience in the field of Epigraphy while working as a Senior Epigraphical Assistant in Archaeological Survey of India.
5. According to the petitioner, the field of Epigraphy forms part of the field of Archaeology and as such, his application ought to have been considered. The Tribunal by accepting the stand taken by the respondents that the experience in the field of Epigraphy cannot be construed as an experience in Archaeology, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved against the said order, the above writ petition is filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed various materials to substantiate that the field of Epigraphy is also falls within the field of Archaeology and accordingly contended that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for by him.
7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents contended that the field of Epigraphy is distinct from the field of Archaeology and as such, the applicant has not fulfilled the necessary qualifications and his application was rightly rejected by the Commission.
8. In the light of the above submissions, the only question remains to be seen is as to whether the field of Epigraphy forms part of the field of Archaeology and as such, whether the petitioner has fulfilled the required qualifications as per the notification of the Commission.
9. A counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, while describing the various fields in the Archaeological Survey of India, wherein it is mentioned as hereunder:-
"As a matter of fact, Archaeological Survey of India is a multifaceted organisation and its technical officers fall under the following separate cadres:-
a) Archaeological Cadre
b) Conservation Cadre
c) Science Cadre
d) Epigraphy Cadre and
e) Horticulture Cadre All these cadres are distinct and different in the Archaeological Survey of India, they are not interlinked with each other in matters of appointments up to the level of Directors."
10. Though a specific stand is taken to the effect that both the fields are distinct and different, a perusal of the above observation in the counter-affidavit of the third respondent discloses that all the five fields referred therein comes under the control of Archaeological Survey of India. As per the note made available by the third respondent along with the counter-affidavit, it is not in dispute that Epigraphy is the study of inscriptions and inscription literally means anything engraved on some object. Similar description is indicated in the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary. The prospects issued by the Institute of Archaeological Survey of India in respect of all Post-graduate Diploma in Archaeology also prescribes Epigraphy and Numismatics as one of the subject.
11. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the field of Epigraphy also forms part of the field of Archaeology. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is one of the senior most person working as a Senior Epigraphical Assistant in the Department of Archaeological Survey of India. Even though a specific plea was raised by the petitioner in ground 'G' in respect of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition by indicating that as many as five persons who were similarly placed like the petitioner were promoted and considered to the higher posts, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, the cryptic denial is made as follows:-
"In this regard it is submitted that every recruitment is an independent case. The profile of candidates called for interview varies from case to case depending upon the number of application received, number of posts and profile of the applicants."
The respondents 1 and 2 have not chosen to take a specific stand in this regard to the effect that the said named individuals have fulfilled the qualifications otherwise as prescribed by the Commission.
12. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the claim of the petitioner has to be construed in accordance with law. During the pendency of the above proceedings, it appears that one of the candidate who appeared for the interview was selected and appointed to the post of 'Superintending Archaeologist' in OBC quota. It is also reported by the respondents that necessary communication addressed to the said selected individuals to the effect that such appointment would be subject to the result of the present writ petition. Since we have found that the petitioner was otherwise eligible and yet he was not called for the interview, the process of selection has become vitiated and as such the petitioner should be given an opportunity of being considered for the post by calling him for the interview. In the peculiar circumstances, we direct that the selection already made is to be quashed and a fresh interview may be held, wherein the petitioner and the selected candidate shall be interviewed for the purpose of making the appointment. This may be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.
Internet : Yes Index : Yes Svn To
1.Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi 110 069.
2.Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi 110 069.
3.Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, 10 Janpath, New Delhi 110 001.
4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.