Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ruby vs Staff Selection Commission on 22 February, 2023
1
Item No. 36/ C-5 O.A. No.2324/2021
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2324/2021
This the 22nd day of February, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
1) Ruby D/o Sh. Prem Raj
E-15, New Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh Delhi - 110043
2) Shagun Som S/o Sh. Subhash Singh
101 Rampura Pilkhuwa
Dhaulana, Hapur - UP - 245304
3) Ekal Dixit S/o Sh. Sandeep Dixit
Plot No.2, Gali No.4,
Puranan Shivali Road,
Hari Singh ki Bagiya, Kalyanpur
Kanpur, UP - 208017
...Applicants
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Amit Kaushik with Mr. H N Pandey)
Versus
1) Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Union of India
Block No-12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003
2) The Registrar General of India
Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner,
India
Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India
NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi - 110001
3) Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India
Through the Home Secretary
North Block
New Delhi - 110001
4) Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation
Union of India
Through the Secretary
418, Sardar Patel Bhawan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate(s): Mr. U. Srivastava)
2
Item No. 36/ C-5 O.A. No.2324/2021
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A) Learned counsel for the applicants states that he has filed the present Original Application seeking the following relief(s):-
"a. Direct the Respondent No.1 to relax the education qualification mentioned in the CGL, 2019 Examination Notice for the post of SIG-II to confirm to the Recruitment Rules, 2019 issued by the Respondent No.2.
b. Direct the Respondent No.1 to repeat the process of documents verification for seeking the preference of the Applicants as well as the other shortlisted candidates for the post of JSO or SIG-II after alignment of the education qualification mentioned in the CGL, 2019 Examination Notice for the post of SIG-II with the Recruitment Rules, 2019 issued by the Respondent No.2.
c. Direct the Respondents to consider the education qualification of the masters of the Applicants No.1 for the post of SIG-II.
d. The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to Stay the process of recruitment as well as the declaration of result in relation to the post of SIG-II and JSO until the disposal of the Application; and/or e. Pass any other order and/or direction, as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."
2. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants draws our attention to para no.8.3 of Staff Selection Commission Notice dated 22.10.2019, which reads as under:-
"8.3 Statistical Investigator Grade-II:
8.3.1 Bachelor's Degree in any subject with Statistics as one of the subjects from a recognized University or Institute.
The candidates must have studied Statistics as a subject in all the three years of the graduation course." 3
Item No. 36/ C-5 O.A. No.2324/2021 2.1 He further draws our attention to the Recruitment Rules. The relevant column of the same reads as under:-
(6) (7) (8)
Not exceeding 30 years. Essential: No
Note 1: Relaxable for Bachelor degree in any
Government servants upto subject with Statistics as one
five years' in accordance with of the subject from a the instructions or orders recognized University or issued by the Central Institute.
Government.
Note 1: The qualifications are Note 2: The crucial date for relaxable at the discretion of determining the age limit the Staff Selection shall be the closing date Commission or competent prescribed for those in Assam, authority, for reasons to be Meghalaya, Arunachal recorded in writing, in case of Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, candidates otherwise well Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim, qualified.
Ladakh Division of Jammu and Kashmir State, Lahaul Note 2: The qualification and Spiti district and Pangi regarding experience is Sub-Division of Chamba relaxable at the discretion of district of Himachal Pradesh, the Staff Selection Andaman and Nicobar Commission or competent Islands and Lakshadweep. authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, if at any stage of Selection the Staff Selection Commission or competent authority is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities possessing the requisite experience are not likely to be available to fill up the vacancies reserved for them.
2.2 As may be seen therefrom, there is a discrepancy between the qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules (RRs) and those mentioned in the aforesaid Notice at para no.8.3.1. Whereas the Recruitment Rules do not make any mention that the candidates must have studied 'Statistics' as a subject in all the three years of graduation course, this sentence has been added in the Notice, which is not tenable as it does not tally with the RRs.
4
Item No. 36/ C-5 O.A. No.2324/2021
3. Learned counsel for the applicants further draws our attention to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others, reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 507. The relevant paragraph of the same reads as under:-
"21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1st July, 2001 and 1st July, 2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules."
4. In other words, learned counsel for the applicants contends that wherever there is a variance between the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement and that prescribed in the RRs, the one in RRs shall prevail over that mentioned in the advertisement.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants and relies on para Nos.9, 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit. The same is reproduced here under for ready reference:- 5
Item No. 36/ C-5 O.A. No.2324/2021 "9. That as per documents produced by the Applicants in support of their Education Qualification during their Document Verification, none of the three Applicants hade studied Statistics in all the three years of the graduation course. Applicant No.1 viz. Ms Ruby has studied Statistics in B.Com (Hon.) (Part-I) and (Part-II) whereas in B.Com.(Hon.) (Part-III), she has studied Management Accounting (XVI), Macroeconomics (XVII), Indian Economy (XVIII), Financial Management (XIX), Fundamental of Investment (XX), Principles of Marketing (XXIII) and Advertising and Personal Selling (XXIV). The Applicant No. 1 has also done Master degree in Business Administration (MBA) wherein she has studied Statistics as a subject in First Semester of First Year only. The Applicant No. 2 viz. Shri Shagun Som has studies Statistics in B.Com (Part-I) only whereas the Applicant No. 3 viz. Ekal Dixit has done B.Sc. ( Mathematics) and has not studies Statistics as a subject in any of the three years of his bachelor degree. Copy of Marksheets of B.Cm. (H) as well as MBA Course done by the Applicant No. 1 are annexed and marked as Annexure-R1 (Colly.) whereas copy of marksheets of B.Com. degree of Applicant No. 2 is annexed and marked as Annexure -R2(Colly.). Copy of Marksheets of B.Sc. (Math.) of Applicant No.3 is annexed and marked as Annexure-R3 (Colly.) xxxxxxx
15. That the matter of elucidation of Educational Qualification/Eligibility in respect of the post of Statistical investigator Grade -II (Post Code C-33) was also taken up with the Office of Registrar General of India which is the User Department in respect of the Post in question, In turn, the User Department vide letter No. F.12011/8/1018-AD-V dated 17.10.2019 clarified as under:-
"The matter was earlier discussed with UPSC while framing the RRs. A copy of the letter sent to UPSC is placed at Annexure A. It is informed that applicant should have the subject of Statistics at Degree level in Part-I, Part- II and Part-III or in all the six semesters of three years degree course and not simply a paper in any part of the Degree or six semesters at degree level." Copy letter No. F.12011/8/2018-AD-V dated 17.10.2019 issued by O/o the Registrar General of India is annexed and marked as Annexure -R4.
16. That the Commission is a recruiting agency and conducts examination for recruitment of eligible candidates for various posts in accordance with the recruitment rules framed and vacancies reported by User Departments. The Commission obtain/confirms the vacancy position from all the participating Ministries/ Department/ Central Govt. Organizations from time to time. Since, the Applicants herein do not hold requisite Educational Qualifications as per the elucidation of the User Department, they were not found 6 Item No. 36/ C-5 O.A. No.2324/2021 eligible for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade-II (Post Code C-33) during documents verification."
6. The matter was heard at length and argued by both the learned counsel.
7. We find that the crux of the matter lies in the discrepancy between the eligibility criteria regarding qualifications prescribed under the advertisement vis-à-vis the RRs. The criteria under the advertisement is more stringent than the one prescribed under the RRs. It is a well established law that in case of such a discrepancy, the criteria prescribed under the RRs shall prevail. It has also been highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicants that vide order dated 22.02.2021, the Tribunal had issued notice to the respondents with an interim direction that "In the meantime, if any selections are made in pursuance of the CGL Examination 2019 for the post of SIG-II, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the O.A." He further states that the present applicants are within the zone of consideration inasmuch their names appear at serial nos.382, 134 and 150 respectively in the Select List against the advertised vacancies.
8. We, therefore, find that the applicants had been selected and their names appeared in the Select List but at the stage of document verification, the aforementioned doubts were raised and that is why their names were not considered. We also find 7 Item No. 36/ C-5 O.A. No.2324/2021 that there was no formal order of rejection qua the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has already brought out the fact that there are ample number of vacancies available, therefore, non-availability of vacancies is not an issue in the present case.
9. In the conspectus of the facts brought out above, we find that there is merit in the OA and thus the same is allowed. We hereby direct the respondents to proceed with offer of appointment to the applicants, if they are otherwise found eligible and suitable except for the point raised above. The respondents are also directed to grant consequential relief on notional basis to the applicants vis-à-vis their batchmates at their appropriate merit position. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
10. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur)
Member (J) Member (A)
/sm/