Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sandeep vs Staff Selection Commission on 23 December, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 4414/2013
Order Reserved on: 05.11.2015
Pronounced on: 23.12.2015
Hon'ble Mr. A. K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. V.N. Gaur, Member (A)
Sandeep,
Son of Sh. Rajbir Singh,
VPO Jasrana,
Distt.Sonepat,
Tehsil Gohana,
Haryana.
- Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Arun Khatri)
Vs.
1. Staff Selection Commission
Through its Chairman,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Staff Selection Commission
Northern Range,
Through its Regional Director,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
3. Staff Selection Commission
Northern Range,
Through its Under Secretary,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2 OA No.4414/2013
4. The Secretary,
DOP&T,
North Block,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. S.M.Arif)
ORDER
Hon'ble Shri V.N.Gaur, Member (A) The applicant in the present OA appeared in Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2012 advertised by the respondent no.1 on 24.03.2012. After qualifying in Tier I examination, he appeared in Tier II examination and on the basis of his performance he was called for Data Entry Skill Test (DEST) on 18.11.2012. During the process of verification of documents before DEST, the respondents found that the applicant did not possess the requisite educational qualification as on 01.08.2012, the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement. The candidature of the applicant was then cancelled even though he had secured more marks than the last selected candidate.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had cleared Tier-I & II tests and thereafter had been called for Interview-cum-Personality Test (ICPT)/DEST. The applicant appeared in all the stages of examination and cleared all the stages of selection test Tier-I & II and ICPT. But for some unknown reason, and acting arbitrarily, the respondents did not 3 OA No.4414/2013 include his name in the list of successful candidates. When the applicant approached the respondents through an RTI application regarding his result, he was givenvague reply stating that the revised result of CGLE 2012 hadbeen declared on 30.05.2013. Learned counsel vehemently denied the the stand taken by the respondents in their counter reply that the applicant did not possess graduation degree as on the cut off date. According to the learned counsel the applicant had acquired graduation degree prior to 01.08.2012 and submitted copies of his Bachelor's degree and statement of marks in Part-I, Part-II and Part-III examinations of Bachelor of Arts to the respondents. He specially referred to the Statement of marks issued by Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning Management (EIILM)University, Sikkim on 24.08.2012 showing that he had appeared in BA (General) Part-III examination during the session July 2010-June 2011 and passed in first division. The University had also issued a certificate on 15.07.2013 in support of this contention of the applicant. The learned counsel stated that the applicant had filed MA-1212/2015 on 25.03.2015 placing on record a copy of the degree issued by the EIILM University confirming the award of degree to the applicant on the basis of the examination held in June 2011. The degree was issued in August 2012. According to learned counsel once the University had certified that the applicant had obtained the degree in 2011, it was arbitrary and illegal on the part of the respondents 4 OA No.4414/2013 to conclude that the applicant did not possess degree on the cut-off date. The respondents were absolutely wrong in going by the date of issue of the marksheets and the degree instead of referring to the examination on the basis of which thosemarksheets/degree were awarded.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, refuted the claim of the applicant that he appeared in the ICPT/DEST, and stated that as the applicant was not found possessing the essential qualification on the cut off date he was not allowed to appear in that test. The learned counsel drew attention to the fact that according to the marksheet dated 12.07.2011 the applicant had appeared in BA Part-I examination held in April 2011 by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and passed that examination by scoring 150 out of 400. At the same time, the applicant has also submitted the statement of marks issued by EIILM University, Sikkim dated 25.06.2012 and 24.08.2012 in respect of examinations purportedly held for the session July 2009- June 2010 and July 2010-June 2011. It was clear that when the marksheet for the final year examination was issued on 24.08.2012, by no stretch of imagination the applicant could have been considered as being in possession of that degree on 01.08.2012. The certificate used by the EIILM University dated 15.07.2013 and a copy of the degree dated Aug 2012 were produced by the applicant only at a later stage. Even if cognizance 5 OA No.4414/2013 is taken of these documents it would not change the situation as the applicant had not got the statement of marks as on the cut off date, i.e. 01.08.2012. The respondents, therefore, had no alternative but to cancel his candidature despite the fact that he had secured marks higher than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate. The learned counsel relied on Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in WP (C) 13688/2001 decided on 08.02.2011.
4. We have heard the learned counsels and perused the record. The short issue to be determined is whether the applicant was in possession of the essential qualification, i.e. a Bachelors degree, on the cut off date, 01.08.2012.
5. Admittedly the applicant had submitted copy of marksheets bearing dates after the cut-off date, at the time of verification of documents (para 4 (g) of rejoinder) and has contended that the respondents have denied the validity of the marksheets just by seeing its date of issue and not the session to which pertained to. The respondents also and did not take into account the certificate issued by the EIILM University, Sikkim. The aforementioned certificate issued on 15.06.2013 certifies that the applicant "was (sic) last appeared in JULY 10 - JUNE 11 Session YEAR - III, BACHELOR OF ARTS (GENERAL) examination of the University held in August 2011 and has been declared pass." The applicant 6 OA No.4414/2013 through MA no.1212/2015 filed on 25.03.2015 has placed on record a copy of the degree issued by the said University confirming that he was awarded Degree of Bachelor of Arts on the basis of examination held in June 2011. The Degree is, however, issued on (date illegible) August 2012. A careful perusal of the marksheets placed on record by the applicant raise some intriguing questions. There is a marksheet issued by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtakon 12.07.2011 in respect of BA Part-I Exam April 2011 in which the applicant scored 150 out of 400 marks with subjects English, Hindi, Public Administration, Geography, Environment Studies (QUAL.). There is another marksheet issued by EIILM University, Sikkim showing that the applicant appeared in BA Part- II examination for the session July 2009-June 2010 and scored 329 out of 500 marks. This marksheet was issued on 25.06.2012. The subjects opted by the applicant were General English - Language to Literature, Hindi - (Hindi Gadyay)/Bangla Paper 2, Political Science - Modern Indian Political Thought, History - Indian History from 16th - Mid 18th Century and Economics - Macro Economics. For the Part-III examination which the applicant is stated to have taken during the session July 2010- June 2011, the marksheet was issued on 24.08.2012 and the applicant cleared that examination scoring 850 out of 1400 marks opting subjects English - English for Practical Purpose, Hindi - Hindi Sahitya Ka Itihas Avm Sahitya Parechey/Bangla Paper 3, 7 OA No.4414/2013 Political Science - International Relations, History - Imperialism, Colonialism and Nationalism, Economics - Money, Banking & Public Finance. This marksheet also has an endorsement that "Credit Transfer on the basis of I year from Maharishi Dayanand University". Putting these facts together it can be seen that the applicant passed BA Part-I examination from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in July 2011 but his credit was transferred to EIILM University, Sikkim during the session July 2009-June 2010 for Part-II examination and July 2010-June 2011 for Part-III examination. Further EIILM University, Sikkim issued the marksheets for both the years only in August 2012. It can also be seen that the subjects opted by the applicant in Part-I examination are different from those in Part-II and Part-III examinations. These factors raise a serious doubt about the genuineness of the degree itself leaving aside the question of the actual date of possession of degree by the applicant. Considering the seriousness of the matter and its implications if indeed the concerned institution was involved in facilitating awarding of a fake degree, the respondents are directed to take up this matter with the UGC and crime investigation agencies to examine/ investigate as to how it is possible for a candidate who has taken Part-I examination in the year 2011 from Rohtak, to secure a degree of 3 years course by migrating to another University in the same year, i.e., 2011. 8 OA No.4414/2013
6. Even if we keep the abovementioned controversy aside, the fact is that none of the documents, except a certificate issued by an "authorised signatory"of EIILM University, produced by the applicant establish that he is in possession of a Degree of Bachelor of Arts, which was conferred prior to 01.08.2012. The aforementioned "certificate" cannot be relied upon in the face of the copies of the applicant's original degree and marksheets which bear dates later than 01.08.2012. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the applicant for not possessing essential qualification on the cut off date, i.e., 01.08.2012. The judgment cited by the respondents propounding that the conditions mentioned in the advertisement have to be scrupulously adhered to, will have limited relevance in the present case once the validity of the degree possessed by the applicant itself is in doubt.
7. In the light of the above discussion and for the reasons stated, we find the OA devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
( V.N. Gaur ) ( A.K.Bhardwaj ) Member (A) Member (J) 'sd'