Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Amit Singh vs Gnctd on 20 February, 2023
1
Item No. 32
O.A. No. 2552/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2552/2022
This the 20th day of February, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Amit Singh, (Appointment) Group 'B',
Aged About 29 Years,
S/o Sh. Dharamvir Singh,
R/o Flat No. 203, E-Tower,
Cloud 9 Apartment, Sector-1,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad - 201010.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. MK Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
through its Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002
2. The Principal Secretary (Services),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
New Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002
3. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board,
through its Chairman,
FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma,
Delhi-110092
2
Item No. 32
O.A. No. 2552/2022
4. The Director
Forensic Science Laboratory,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Sector-14,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A):-
The applicant by virtue of the present Original Application seeks the following relief(s):-
"i) To direct respondents to appoint the applicant as Senior Scientific Assistant (Documents) as per his merit and offer of appointment with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and seniority etc. from the date of appointment of similarly placed persons.
ii) To declare that action of respondents in delaying the appointment of applicant to the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Documents) as illegal and arbitrary and issue appropriate directions for appointment of applicant to the 3 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 said post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Documents) with all consequential benefits.
iii) To allow the OA with exemplary cost.
iv) Any other orders may also be passed as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant pursuant to an advertisement of post code 57/20 applied for the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Documents) and was duly selected for the same by virtue of his merit in the competitive selection process. He was issued an offer of appointment dated 22.03.2022. However, till date this offer of appointment has not fructified into regular appointment. The applicant has learnt that subsequent to the document verification, the respondents have raised certain queries and questions with respect to the equivalence of the qualification of the applicant for the position of Senior Scientific Assistant (Documents). Learned counsel for the applicant 4 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 draws attention to the essential qualifications set forth for the said post in the Recruitment Rules which read as under:-
Educational Essential:- Master's Degree in Physics Qualification:- or Chemistry or Forensic Science or Computer Science with Physics or Chemistry or Forensic Science or Computer Science as one of the subject at B.Sc. level from a recognized university or equivalent.
OR B.E./ B. Tech. in Computer Engineering or MCA/ M.Sc.
in Computer Science from a
recognized university or
equivalent.
Desirable:- Doctorate Degree in
concerned discipline from a
recognized university or
equivalent.
5
Item No. 32
O.A. No. 2552/2022
3. Drawing attention to the degree held by the applicant which is placed as (Annexure A-3) at page 37, learned counsel submits that the degree of the applicant is Bachelor of Technology in Mathematics & Computing. Relying upon a clarification issued by the Delhi Technological University (DTU) placed at Page38 of the OA, learned counsel points out that the DTU has unambiguously clarified that the degree of Bachelor of Technology held by the applicant is identical to the qualification set forth in the rules and is to be considered to be equivalent to B.Tech. (Computer Engineering). He draws attention to a document placed by the respondents at page 9 of their counter reply (Annexure R-2), wherein further clarification has been given by the Delhi Technological University in this regard holding that a graduate in Mathematics and Computing is to be considered, for all purposes, as equivalent to a graduate in Computer Engineering. Vide a further communication dated 04.01.2023, the DTU has reiterated this. He places a copy of the latest communication on record. Accordingly, he 6 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 submits that there is no ground for the respondents to further withhold appointment of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, i.e., DSSSB submits that as far as DSSSB is concerned, after making the requisite selection, they have submitted the dossier of the applicant to respondent no. 4 and it is for the respondent no. 4, now to take further action on the same by way of giving appointment to the applicant subject to satisfactory verification of the documents.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 is not available today on account of his engagement elsewhere. To facilitate decision in the matter, the OA was passed over once but it has not been possible to ensure the presence of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
6. Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it would not be a correct reading and interpretation of the communication of Delhi Technical University relied upon by the applicant and the learned counsel to substantiate his claim. Reading through the said communication, learned counsel emphatically 7 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 states that the language of the University while drawing parallel between the two degrees contains sufficient ambiguity as to cast doubt whether the applicant's qualifications would meet the required Recruitment Rules. He submits that the certificate dated 20.12.2021 placed at page 38 merely states as under :-
"This is to certify that Mr. Amit Singh, Roll No. 2K12/MC/10, has successfully completed the requirements prescribed under the ordinances of the University for the award of Bachelor of Technology in Mathematics & Computing Engineering. It is further certified that the majority part of subjects being taught in B.Tech. (Mathematics & Computing Engineering) are similar to that of B.Tech. (Computer Engineering) degree programme."
He highlights that what is certified is that the majority parts of the subjects are similar. Nowhere does it state that the degree is to be considered as equivalent. He further quotes from the communication of the University dated 20.10.2022, which is a response to their letter to them 8 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 seeking clarifications regarding the degree of the applicant. The said communication is placed as Annexure R2 page 9 of the counter reply of the respondents. He points out that the language here too is vague and merely states that because the syllabus of Graduation in Mathematics and Computing Engineering are prepared with a solid foundation for successful career in Computer Engineering, the degree can be considered at par for employment purposes only. He highlights that the words are "can be considered" and further such consideration only for "employment purpose only". He continues his arguments by drawing attention to the internal noting of the relevant files, indicating that the respondents have fairly considered the claim of the applicant and constituted an internal expert committee to go through the issue of equivalence. The expert committee, relying upon the communications of the DTU, referred to in the preceding paragraphs, could not arrive at a definitive conclusion in view of the ambiguity he has already pointed out. He further draws support from a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7031/2021 wherein had held that to hold Diploma/Degree given by one 9 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 university as automatically equivalent to Diploma of another institution as equivalent is erroneous.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10871/1983 in support of his claim wherein the Hon'ble Court had held that it is for each university to draw its conclusion with respect to equivalence and in this case the DTU has done so. Therefore, there is no cause for respondents to take a view which is at variance with the advice of DTU.
8. Meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents (DSSSB) reiterates that as far as the role of DSSSB is concerned, their role has since been over after having sent the dossiers of the applicant to respondent No. 4.
9. We have heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents on record.
10. No doubt learned counsel has pointed out with certain degree of reasonableness, the ambiguity in the advice of the 10 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 DTU. However, we note that if there is an ambiguity the said ambiguity nowhere gives a hint that there is no equivalence. If equivalence does not get fully established, it does not get negated, not even to a minor extent. Moreover, we note that the post in question is Senior Scientific Officer (Documents). We sitting on this Bench may not have expertise in terms of determining the academic qualifications, but it dictates of common sense, make us draw an inference that the SSO(D) , if possessing a Bachelor's degree in Technical Education with Mathematics and Computing as subjects would be no less qualified than one having a degree called Computer Engineering. Moreover, when we read the communication of the University, i.e., DTU time and again, the only inference we can draw is while having drawn similarity between the subjects as also the advice that equivalence can be considered, they could be at most guilty of falling short of outrightly mentioning equivalence. If this minor doubt has crept in the minds of the respondents, even though there may be a justification for the same, we have no hesitation in 11 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 holding that benefit of such doubt should go to the applicant and no one else.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant has further explained to us the dictionary and commonly understood meaning of par which is said to mean " the same as or equal to someone or something" . We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the applicant. Moreover, we are not to be guided by the semantics of the communication but by a spirit of justice. The applicant participated in the selection process, he was successful on his own merit, the agency making such selection recommended his case for appointment and accordingly submitted his dossiers to the concerned government department; at this stage some questions were raised. We have answered those hereinabove.
12. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. The applicant is held to possess the qualification as set forth in the recruitment rules without any doubt whatsoever. The respondents are directed to convert the offer of appointment issued to him 12 Item No. 32 O.A. No. 2552/2022 into a letter of appointment forthwith, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. As a sequel to this order, the applicant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits as may accrue. To clarify, his date of appointment shall be the date on which other candidates who were selected in the said selection process were given appointment. However, fixation of salary and emoluments from such a date shall be on notional basis and on actual basis from the date on which he assumes duty.
14. The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(Pratima K. Gupta) (Tarun Shridhar)
Member (J) Member (A)
akansha/dd/