Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mrs. Geeta Sharma D/O H. P. Sharma vs Union Public Service Commission on 25 October, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No. 3858 of 2011 This the 25th day of October, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Mrs. Geeta Sharma D/o H. P. Sharma W/o Anil Sharma, R/o A-11/84, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Applicant ( By Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Secretary (Recruitment-VI), CPIO, R-V, UPSC, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Geeta Sharma, the applicant herein, is aggrieved of the rejection of her candidature for the post of Assistant Director (Grade-I) (Electronic) in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Ministry of MSME, advertised on 12.03.2011. Inasmuch as, the applicant has not been called for interview, and, in other words, her candidature has been rejected only on the ground that she lacks the essential experience required for the post, there would be need to give only such facts which may be relatable to the issue under consideration. The experience required for the post as mentioned in the advertisement is as follows:
Three years experience in a supervisory capacity in a technical or industrial concern in the development and production of electronic components, equipment and instruments. When the applicant would not receive the interview call, and further when her entreaties with the respondents to give her the reason for not calling her for interview, brought no tangible result, she sought the required information under the Right to Information Act. The applicant indeed has been supplied the information, copy whereof has been annexed by her with the OA at page 67 of the paper-book. Perusal thereof would reveal that there were in all 214 candidates for the post of Assistant Director (Grade-I) (Electronics), and only 23 had been called for interview. The criteria adopted for short-listing the candidates for interview was as under:
EQ-A +EQ-B [EQ-A (Educational):- Degree in Electronics or Telecommunication Engineering of a recognized Univ. or equivalent.
and EQ-A (Experience):- Three years experience in a supervisory capacity in a technical or industrial concern in the development and production of electronics components, equipments and instruments.] The candidature of the applicant was rejected, as mentioned in column 7, as she was lacking the relevant experience required for the post. Column 7 reads as follows:
7. Your application has been rejected under the Category LEQ-B i.e. lacking the relevant experience required for the post.
2. We have heard Shri Vivek Sharma, counsel representing the applicant, and after he concluded the arguments and we reserved the order, the applicant as well came forward and wished that she be also heard.
3. It is the case of the applicant that she answers the eligibility as regards experience, which may be clear from the documents annexed with the OA as Annexure A-3 (colly.). In para 4.4, it is averred that the applicant was having the requisite technical experience of two years eight months and 15 days in the relevant field in M/s Calcom Plastic Pvt. Ltd., and experience of two years two months and twenty days in the relevant field in M/s AS Impex Pvt. Ltd., as desired by Union Public Service Commission in their advertisement No.5/2011 with item No.2 dated 12.03.2011. The applicant also states that she was having the ITI experience for a period of 14 years 9 months and 11 days as on the closing date of submission of application, in C.V. Raman Industrial Training Institute.
4. We have heard the learned counsel as also the applicant. The first two documents at Annexure A-3 are not relevant, as whereas, the first document is as regards the applicant having been examined in 2001 and found qualified for the degree of Bachelor of Technology (Electronics & Communication), the second document certifies that the applicant had completed three years course of studies prescribed by the Board of Technical Education, Delhi, and passed the requisite examination in 1991, and was, therefore, awarded diploma in electronics and electrical communication engineering, division first with distinction. The third document is a certificate with the caption To whomsoever it may concern, and has been issued by M/s Calcom Plastics Private Limited (Audio Division). The same reads as follows:
This is to Certify that Ms. Geeta Sharma D/o Sh. H.P. Sharma Resident of H. No. J-1/224, D.D.A. Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 has worked with us as ENGINEER from 04.07.1991 to 19.03.1994 and has drawn the following monthly salary as under:-
Basic - Rs.1800/-
HRA - Rs. 720/-
CA - Rs. 600/-
She is a Dedicated Employee who has left our Services of her own accord.
We wish her success in her future career. It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that this document would not indicate experience of the applicant in the required fields. Counsel for the applicant would only concentrate upon the next two documents dated 22.06.1996 and 21.03.2011. Document dated 22.06.1996 is once again, a certificate with the caption To whomsoever it may concern issued by M/s AS Impex Private Limited. It has been certified that the applicant had worked as Senior Engineer R&D since 01.04.1994 up to 20.06.1996. Mention is of her basic pay, HRA and DA. It is then mentioned that She was responsible for design, development and production of our product. She is a sincere, hardworking and conscientious Engineer. Her performance during the tenure has been very good. We wish her all the success in future. In our considered view, the experience of the applicant in design, development and production of the product of the company issuing the certificate, would not be enough. It may be recalled that the required experience is in supervisory capacity in a technical or industrial concern in the development and production of electronic components, equipment and instruments. This certificate does not mention that the applicant was working in a supervisory capacity, and that she was engaged in development and production of electronic components, equipment and instruments. It is not even known as to what would be the product of the company. This experience certificate submitted by the applicant to UPSC, in our view, could not be treated as the requisite experience which was required, and which has been mentioned above. The next document dated 21.03.2011 is an experience certificate issued by Sir C. V. Raman Industrial Training Institute, Delhi. It states that the applicant had been working in the Directorate of Training & Technical Education, Government of Delhi, as a Craft Instructor (Electronics/Radio & T.V.) since 21.06.1996. The nature of duties performed by the applicant has been mentioned as follows:
1. Imparting Technical Training to the trainees of Industrial Training Instt. Which includes Theoretical classes & Practical Training.
2. Checking and correcting of theoretical notes as well as practical jobs of Trainees.
3. She is responsible for proper upkeep of section, stores and equipments.
4. Requisitioning of tools and raw materials needed for training. None of the duties of the applicant, as mentioned above, would be relatable to her having worked in supervisory capacity in a technical or industrial concern in the development and production of electronic components, equipment and instruments. There is no other document that may have been relied upon by the counsel or the applicant in support of the plea that the applicant would have the requisite experience. In our considered view, the candidature of the applicant has been rightly rejected, as, even as per her certificates, taken at their best, she would not have the requisite experience for a period of three years, as required.
5. Finding no merit in this Original Application, we dismiss the same in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/