Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R. Gopalakrishnan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 November, 1998
JUDGMENT
K.S. Bakthavatsalam, Vice-Chairman.
1. The applicant challenges a selection made by respondents 1 to 4 for the post of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Pondicherry on transfer on deputation for a period of two years with effect from 22.9.1997.
2. The post of Chief Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Pondicherry Government is a Group-A post with the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-150-5700. The method of recruitment is by promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation according.to the recruitment rules which is as follows:-
"Transfer on deputation :
Officers of the Central/State Governments/Union Territories
(a)(i) Holding analogous posts on a regular basis or ,
(ii) With 3 years' regular service in posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 4100-5300 or equivalent; or
(iii) With 5 years' regular service in posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5000 or equivalent; and
(b) Processing the following qualifications and experience, Essential:
(i) Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognised University or equivalent; (ii) 12 years' professional experience in the field of Civil Engineering Works."
As there have been no eligible officers available in the feeder category of the Public Works Department to fill up the post on promotion, the administration decided to fill up the post by transfer on deputation. Accordingly a circular was sent to all Central/State/Union Territory Governments requesting for sponsoring of eligible candidates. The last date for receipt of the applications was on 20.12.96. An advertisement to that effect was effected in the Employment News dated 19-22 November, 1996. The applicant who is an edenoyee of the Pondicherry University sent an application which was received on 9.12.96. Apart from that three applications were received, one from the sixth respondent herein and two other applications from one K.K. Mutreja and one K. Balakrishnan forwarded by the Director General of Works, C.P.W.D., New Delhi, on 16.12.96 and 18.12.96 and were received by the Department on 23.12.96 as the preceding 2 days having been holidays (Saturday and Sunday). As such the file containing all the applications was placed before the competent authority, i.e. Chief Secretary to Government, Pondicherry and orders were obtained for considering the applications received from the three applicants after the last date because of postal delay. So all the four applications were considered and it was found that the applicant is ineligible for the reason that he is an employee of the Pondicherry University which is not a Department of the Central, State or Union Territory Government. But all the applications including that of the applicants were forwarded to the U.P.S.C., the first respondent, for consideration. The first respondent processed all the four applications but requested the administration to call the three applicants for interview except the applicant. All the three applicants were called for interview. At this juncture, the applicant had approached this Tribunal and filed O.A. 556/97. This Tribunal entertained the application and passed an exparte interim order as follows:
" The applicant shall be called for the interview for the post of Chief Engineer and the results will be withheld until further orders."
Immediately after the receipt of the interim order in O.A. 556/97, the call letter was sent to the applicant as difected by this Tribunal and the applicant also attended the interview on the date fixed for the interview alongwith the others. However the result of the interview was withheld as ordered by this Tribunal. Miscellaneous Application 449 of 1997 and 450 of 1997 in O.A. 556/97 were came up before this Tribunal, one filed by the respondents for early disposal of the O.A. 556/97 and the other filed by the applicant praying for substitution of the relief. This Tribunal by order dated 6.8.97 dismissed the Original Application No. 556/ 97 and also M.As. 449 and 450 of 1997, taking the view that nothing survives in that application as the applicant had been interviewed in pursuance of the interim order. However, liberty was given to the applicant to challenge any order passed if he is not selected. The result of the interview was published after the disposal of the O.A. 556/97 by which the sixth respondent was selected by the Selection Board of the UPSC and he has been appointed on 25.9.1997 as Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Pondicherry on transfer on deputation initially for a period of two years. After making a representation on 14.8.97 to respondents 1 to 4 that he is the only eligible candidate to be appointed to the said post among those interviewed on 23.6.97 as the other candidates' applications were received after the due date, applicant is before us with this application.
3. The applicant has stated in his application that he is working as Executive Engineer of the Pondicherry University which is a Central University and established under the Central Act and the University is controlled and administered by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The applicant further alleges that he is qualified person for the post of Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Pondicherry and as such he applied for the same through proper channel in pursuance of the Notification dated 21.10.96 which was published in the Employment News 16-22, November, 1996. The applicant also states that he is aged 42 years, a resident of Pondicherry and the applicant is holding a post analogous to the qualifying post prescribed by the Government on a regular basis for the past eight years and the maximum pay scale for the said post is same as that of the Chief Engineer called for by the Fourth Respondent. The applicant alleges that the last date for the receipt of application for the said post was not extended further and interview card was not received by the applicant till 16.6.1997 for the interview scheduled to be conducted on 23.6.97 as such the applicant states that he had approached the Tribunal in O.A. 556/97 and obtained an interim order, as stated above. The applicant also states that he has successfully attended the interview on 23.6.97 and has answered all the questions correctly, put to him by the Members of the Interview Board. The applicant further alleges that when the last date for receiving the application was fixed on 20.12.96. The respondents received three other applications on 23.12.96 and those applications were considered by the first respondent. The applicant states that the applications received after the due dale should not have been interviewed and it is arbitrary. The applicant further alleges that since the 4th respondent has received the application of the applicant only and he alone would be eligible to be considered for appointment to the said post and the other three candidates whose applications were received after the due date are ineligible even to attend the interview and they cannot be appointed to the said post. The applicant further alleges that activities of respondents 1 to 4 clearly disclose their pre-determination of the selection process by having accepted the other three applications after the due date and also obtained some requisite particulars. As such the applicant alleges that the interview is only an eye-wash. The further allegation made is that according to Notification dated 21.10.1996 the designation is not the criteria but the scale of pay is the only relevant and according to Clause 10 of the Notification the applicant is fully qualified.
4. The applicant alleges that respondents 1 to 4 received the application of the applicant alone in time for the selection to the post of Chief Engineer, P. W.D. Pondicherry, the act of the respondents 1 to 4 in not selecting the applicant vitiate the selection and it shows the predetermination of the selection process. It is also stated that the non-selection of the applicant for the post is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicant also states that from the very beginning respondents 1 to 4 were acted in a biased manner, and not called him for the interview and the applicant has approached this Tribunal and in view of the interim order passed by this Tribunal only he was called for the interview and it is only an eye-wash. The applicant further states that he was the only eligible candidate who has performed very well in the interview and the selection of the 6th respondent made by order in G.O. Ms. No. 21 dated 25-9-97 which published in the Government Gazette Notification dated 7.10.97 is liable to be set aside.
5. A detailed reply has been filed by respondents 1 to 4. In the reply after referring to the facts of the case, the respondents refer to the Recruitment Rules. The respondents have stated that the applicant is a permanent employee of the Pondicherry University and therefore he has made an application on his own accord and he is not working in any Central/State/ Union Territory Government and he is not on a scale of pay which can be compared with the scale prescribed by the Central/State/Union Territory Governments. The respondents have stated that the Executive Engineer's scale in the P.W.D., Pondicherry is Rs. 3000-4500 whereas in the Pondicherry University the scale of pay of the Executive Engineer is Rs. 3700- 5700. It has been pointed out that the applicant originally an employee of the Department of Public Works Department Pondicherry and thereafter he got appointed into the service of the Pondicherry University on permanent basis. As on date, there are considerable number seniors working still in the Department under various designation and the applicant has no locus standi to maintain this application. However, it is stated that he was called fo'r the interview and interviewed by the UPSC because of the interim order of this Tribunal in O. A. 556/97 and he was not selected.
6. The sixth respondent has filed a separate reply. It is stated in the reply that the application in the prescribed proforma in triplicate to his parent department, i.e. the Director General Office, Central Public Works Department, New Delhi on 9.12.96, the department in turn forwarded the application alongwith the confidential report to the fourth respondem through speed post on 10.12.96. So it is stated that the very application is received by the office of the sixth respondent on 9.12.96. It is further stated that since the application was forwarded by the department reached Pondicherry on 19th itself due to the delay caused by the postal department the application did not reach the fourth respondent on 20.12.96 and it was delivered on 23.12.97 as 21.12.96 and 22.12.96 being the holiday (Saturday and Sunday). As such, it is stated that there is no delay on the part of the sixth respondent as he has submitted his application to the parent department as early as on 9.12.96. It is also pointed out that the applicant's application was forwarded by the University of Pondicherry and as such the applicant is not having the basic qualification and therefore ineligible for the post of Chief Engineer since he is an employee of the Pondicherry University which is not a Department of the Central State or Union Territory Government. It is further pointed out that Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules contemplates the method of recruitment as promotion failing which by transfer on deputation. The suitability of the regular holder of the post of Principal Engineer with 5 years regular service in the Grade of Principal Engineer/ Superintending Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs. 3700-5000 will be initially assessed by the Commission for appointment to the upgraded post of Chief Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-5700.
It is pointed out that the applicant's basic pay is Rs. 4700/- is on the basic of UGC Scale and an Executive Engineer's scale in the Public Works Department, Pondicherry is only Rs. 3000-4500 as such he is not eligible for the post of Chief Engineer. It is further stated that the applicant has suffered a major penalty charges and he was under suspension from 27.11.89 to 7.7.91 and removed from service from 8.7.91 to 1.1.95 and he was reinstated in service only from 2.1.95 pursuant to the order of the High Court on the ground of procedural irregularities. It is also pointed out that all the 4 applications including that of this applicant were placed before the UPSC and the applicant also appeared for the interview on. the directions of this Tribunal. The sixth respondent has stated in para 13 of the reply about his qualifications. According to the sixth respondent as he is having more qualifications among all the four persons who are attended the interview he has been selected for that post. It is also pointed out that the applicant is not at all eligible to apply for the said post as he neither has 3 years regular service or 5 years regular service before the date of his application. He was treated as not on duty for the period from 27.11.89 to 1.1.95 by the Madras High Court. This fact has been suppressed by the applicant. It is further pointed out that even as per the Notification the application should be sent on or before 20.12.1996 and the application of the sixth respondent was sent in time and the 2nd and 4th respondents have been competent authority and have ample power to extend the time and as such for no mistake of the sixth respondent he should not be made to suffer. It is also pointed out that mere sending of an application itself will not give any right to get the post and it is for the authorities to consider on merits and select suitable candidate.
7. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the official respondents had taken a different stand in the reply now as if the applicant is not qualified whereas they have stated earlier in M.A. 449/97 that he has been interviewed and nothing survives in O.A. 556/97. So according to the learned Senior Counsel that the applicant has got to be considered on merit. The learned Senior Counsel also contends that once the applications of other candidates were received after the due date and the application of the applicant alone had been received within time the applicant alone had to considered for selection and not the other applicants. The other argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that the earlier order of this Tribunal in O.A. 556 of 1997 had become final. The learned Senior Counsel also contends by relying upon the undertaking given by the Government Pleader that the applicant had been interviewed and as such it is not open to the applicant now to take a different stand that the applicant is not qualified to interview at all. According to the learned Senior Counsel the selection process itself is bad in law and as such the appointment of sixth respondent has got to be set aside.
8. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents contended that even though according to the Notification the applicant was not entitled for interview at all, he has been interviewed and had not selected. The learned Government Pleader states that the applicant has been interviewed by the UPSC in view of the directions given by this Tribunal in O.A. 556/97 and he was not selected, as such he cannot have any grievance. The learned Government Pleader also stated that the applicant cannot have any grievance as his case has been considered and there cannot be any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Government Pleader referred to us to the Notification issued calling for the applications and also referred to us the Recruitment Rules which has been annexed with the reply filed by the official respondents. The learned Government Pleader also points out that Clauses 9 and 10 of the Notification should read together and persons employed in Central/State/Union Territory alone are eligible to apply for the post and University Employees are not eligible to apply. The learned Government Pleader also points out that the UPSC has called for the applicant also for the interview and when the applicant filed earlier application O.A. 556/97 seeking a direction against respondents 1 to 4 to call for the applicant for the interview, has not raised this point that receipt of applications after the due date. The learned Government Pleader referred us to a decision of the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in Santosh Kumar v. U.P.S. C. and Ors., (1995) 30 ATC 737, in which it has been decided that when the delay is not attributable to candidate the application is to be entertained. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the applicant has no locus standi to maintain this application at all as he has not at qualified to present the application even though his case was considered by the UPSC.
9. The learned Government Pleader relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Maheshwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1998 SC 966)with regard to the principle of estoppel,wherein the Supreme Court has held that this Doctrine cannot be invoked for enforcement of "promise" made contrary to law. The learned Government Pleader referred this decision for the proposition that just because the application has been entertained it cannot be said that he is qualified to apply for the post. The learned Government Pleader also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Upan Chandra Gogai v. State of Assam (AIR 1998 SC 1289) for the proposition that a candidate applied in response to an advertisement had to meet the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement and as the applicant is not qualified, he cannot maintain this application. The learned Government Pleader relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in Govt. of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das (AIR 1988 SC 375) for the proposition that mere empanelment or inclusion of one's name in the selection list does not given any write to be appointed. Learned Government Pleader relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Mahendran and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors., (1990) (1) SLR 307, for the proposition that a candidate does not get any right to the post by merely sending an application for the same but that right is created in his favour for considering for the post in accordance with the terms and existing recruitment rules.
10. The learned Government Pleader stated that though in the reply a stand is taken that the applicant does not qualify but factually his case was considered by UPSC and the sixth respondent was selected on merits. It is also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the applicant has suppressed the fact that his service for nearly six years from 27.11.89 to 1.1.1995 is not treated as period spent on duty and as such he is not qualified under the Recruitment Rules even assuming that he is entitled to apply for the post.
11. Mr. M.M. Sunderasan, learned Counsel for the sixth respondent contended that the applicant is an employee of the Pondicherry University and according to the Notification published he cannot come under the Notification. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the sixth respondent that though the proforma contains the term University no circular was sent to the University and the applicant was not qualified to apply. As the Executive Engineer in the University the applicant comes one category below. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that except the Advocate General no other officer can give undertaking on behalf of the State Government. In support of this contention the learned Counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in The Secretary, Selection Committee Sabarmathi Hostel, KMC, Madras v. Dr. R. Rajesh, 1995 WLR 839, and contended that the undertaking given by the Government Pleader cannot be taken note of. The learned Counsel further contended that the last date for receipt of application was extended by the Competent Authority, but the sixth respondent sent his application in time to the parent department and the delay caused cannot be taken advantage of by the applicant for taking of a place that other applicants had not applied in time. At any rate, the learned Counsel for the sixth respondent states that the applicant was also interviewed and has not been selected. The learned Counsel also referred us to Clause (iii) in Categories of Officers which says that with 5 years regular service in posts in the scale of Rs 3,700-5,000 or equivalent. The applicant was reinstated in service by order of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 10086 of 1991 dated 23.11.1994 and he was reinstated in service on 2.1.95 only and the period between 27.11.89 and 1.1.95 has been treated as not on duty, as such the applicant is not entitled to apply for the post at all under the various clauses of the notification and has no locus standi to question the appointment.
12. We have gone through the application, reply filed by the official respondents and the sixth respondent. We have considered the arguments of Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Mr. T. Murugesan, learned Government Pleader for the official respondents and Mr. M.M. Sunderasan learned Counsel for the sixth respondent,
13. The short point for consideration is; whether the appointment of the sixth respondent as Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Pondicherry is vitiated on any ground. In our view it is not.
14. First of all the applicant is not entitled to apply for the post at all. How to apply for the post is shown in Annexure A.1. Notification which is as follows :
" It is requested that the applications in triplicate as per the given proforma may be arranged to be sent through proper channel alongwith the complete and upto date confidential reports to the Deputy Secretary to Government (Works), Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry on or before 20.12.96. Applications received after the last date or without confidential report or otherwise found in complete will not be considered. While forwarding the applications, it may be verified and certified by the concerned head of departments that the particulars furnished by the officers are correct and that no disciplinary case is pending or contemplated against the officer. The applicants are hereby informed that they will not be permitted to withdraw their applications."
The post of Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Pondicherry is filled by on transfer on deputation which is permitted under the Recruitment Rules of the Pondicherry Government and G.M. Ms No. 34, dated 11.12.96 has been issued under the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India which is called the Government of Pondicherry Public Works Department, Group 'A' Post of Chief Engineer Recruitment Rules, 1996. The method of recruitment is found in Clause 11 of the schedule. Clause 12 of the Schedule provides for transfer on deputation which is as follows :
"12. In Case of recruitment by promotion deputation/transfer, grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer to be made.
Promotion:
Superintending Engineer in the scale of pay Rs. 3,700-5,000/ with 5 years regular service in the grade. Transfer on deputation :
Officers of the Central/State Governments/Union Territories :-
(a)(i) Holding analogous posts on a regular basis; or (ii) with 3 years' regular service in posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 4,100-5300 or equivalent; or (iii) with 5 years' regular service in posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 3,700-5,000 or equivalent; and (b) Pssessing the following qualifications and experience. Essential: (i) Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognised University or equivalent; (ii) 12 years' professional experience in the field of Civil Engineering works. Desirable:
Post-graduate degree in Civil Engineering from a recognised University or equivalent.
The departmental officers in the feeder category who are in the direct line of promotion shall not be eligible for consideration for a appointment on deputation.
Similarly, deputationists shall not be eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion.
Period of deputation, including period of deputation in another ex-cadre post held immediately preceding this appointment in the same or some other organisation/department of the Central Government shall ordinary not to exceed 5 years. The maximum age limit for appointment by transfer on deputation shall be, not exceeding 56 years, as on the closing date of receipt of applications."
It is true that we find from the Notification the last date for receipt of the application is on or before 20.12.96 to the Deputy Secretary to Government (Works) Chief Secretariate, Pondicherry. It is the case of the applicant that he alone applied within the time and the other three applicants had not. We fail to understand this. The sixth respondent has sent his application to his parent department on 9.12.96. It was forwarded alongwith the C.Rs. to the 4th respondent by speed post on 18.12.96 due to the delay in the postal department the application was delivered on 23.12.96, as 21.12.96, 22.12.96 being holidays (Saturday and Sunday). As we are not able to understand how the application of the sixth respondent can be considered to be out of time. So we are notable to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that the sixth respondent's application has been received late by the respondents and as such the application ought not to have been considered. The very same question came up for consideration before the Patna Bench of this Tribunal in Santosh Kumar v. U.P.S.C. and Ors., (1995) 30 ATC 737, the Tribunal had held that considering the late recipe of application form in a recruitment process when the delay isn' t attributable to the candidate, the applicant has to be considered for the post. The Tribunal has considered this question and has held at page 740 in para 9 as follows :
"9. The law on the point where the post office is made the medium as a carrier, is clear. Under Section 14(F) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, whereunder there is a pcesumption that where a letter is proved to have been properly addressed and posted, it reached the addressee in due course. In this case it has been amply proved to us that the letter was properly addressed and posted. This presumption is stronger in the case of a registered letter. It is very clear that by directing the candidate to send the application by registered post A/D the UPSC has chosen to treat the Post Office as its agent. In the case of C.I. T. v. Ogale Glass Works Limited (AIR 1954 SC 429) the Supreme Court has held that if the Post Office is constituted as the Agent of the Creditor, then the place of posting by the Debtor will be regarded as the place of receipt by the Creditor. In the case Petland Turkey Red Dye Works Company Limited v. C.I.T. (AIR 1963 SC 1484} there was just a request to send certain amount of sale proceeds by a demand draft to be drawn in a Bank in Rajkot. The Court held that the party must be presumed to have intended that the demand draft at Rajkot should be sent according to the normal course business usage that is, by post. The Post Office consequently became an agent of the Dye Works Company and the sale proceeds were thus received by it in the Taxable Territory. The law, therefore, is clear that by stipulation made by the UPSC itself, the Post Office is chosen as its Agent. By Section 14(F) Evidence Act, there is a presumption that a properly addressed and posted registered letter had reached the addressee in due cause. The UPSC cannot be heard to say in the circumstances. That delay in the receipt of the application would involve a denial of his right to sit in the Examination. The fault, if any did not lie with the candidate at all. All legal principles support his claim."
So we are of the view that so far as the sixth respondent is concerned, the application cannot be thrown out on the ground it has been received after the due date. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the applicant has not raised this issue when he approached this Tribunal earlier in O.A. 556 of 1997, as such when the applicant was not selected he thought fit to raise this point at this stage. In all fairness the applicant should have and could have raised this point even at that point of time. Having not done so, we do not allow the applicant to raise this point now. That apart, the Government Pleader, Pondicherry did not take a different stand earlier. What all he stated before us was in view of the interim orders of this Tribunal the applicant has been interviewed and as such nothing remains to be considered. Only on this statement, the application filed earlier by this applicant was dismissed i.e. O.A. 556/97 on 6.8.97. As such we do not think it necessary to consider the point raised by the learned Counsel for the sixth respondent that whether the undertaking given by the Pondicherry Government Pleader is correct or not. We are not able to appreciate the argument of the learned Senior Counsel that the Government Pleader is taking a different stand at this stage. It is not so. The other point is that the applicant has suppressed the important fact in the application about the removal from service and the order of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 10086 of 1991 dated 23.11.94 and the order passed by the Pondicherry University on 26.2.1996 treating the period of absence from duty from 27.11.89 to 2.1.95 as non-duty. This fact is very important to find whether the applicant is qualified to apply at all under the Recruitment Rules as the above said period has been treated as absent from duty by the Pondicherry University. This fact, in our view has been suppressed by the applicant and it is very unfortunate. The applicant has not come up before us with clean hands and to count the qualifying service under the Recruitment Rules this fact is a relevant one which the applicant ought to have stated before us. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the Counsel for the official respondents and the sixth respondent that the applicant is not at all qualified to apply for the post as per the Notification. Having made an application and having obtained an interim order from this Tribunal his case has been considered by the UPSC and he has not been selected.
15. As we called for the records from UPSC and the records were produced before us by the learned Government Pleader. We have gone through the records and we find that the UPSC has considered the applicant's case also and his case has been rejected only on merits and the sixth respondent has been selected. It is not as if the applicant's case is not at all considered by the UPSC. Whether he is qualified to apply or not, that do not stand in the way now as he has also considered alongwith the other candidates for the said post and he has not been selected. As such when the applicant's case has also considered and has not selected, he cannot have any grievance. It is settled law, that a candidate can ask to be considered for a post but he cannot claim selection, that is Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As such, we do not see any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been held so by the Supreme Court in P. Mahendran and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. (1990 (I) SLR 307) that if a candidate applied for a post in response to an advertisement he has a right to be considered for selection. That is all. The Supreme Court has observed as follows at page 308.
" It is true that a candidate does not get any right to the post by merely making an application for the same, but a right is created in his favour for being considered for the post in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and existing recruitment rules. If a candidate applies for a post in response to advertisement issued by Public Service Commission in accordance with the then Rules he acquires right to be considered for selection in accordance with the then existing Rules. "
16. With regard to the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the order passed by this Tribunal in earlier O.A. 556/97 had become final and it is not for the respondents to take a different stand, we do not think that there is any substance in the argument. The application was dismissed on the representation that the applicant has been interviewed. No other principle has been laid down by us or a decision has been taken in the earlier application. As we have already stated that the applicant's case has been considered on merits and the sixth respondent has been selected, we do not think it necessary to refer all other decisions for the purpose of deciding the issue in this case. The other decisions cited by the learned Counsel on either side are not relevant to decide the issue here. In the result, we hold that the applicant has no locus standi to question the appointment of the sixth respondent as the applicant is not at all qualified to apply for the post. Even assuming that the applicant is qualified to apply for the post, his case has been considered on merits by the UPSC and the sixth respondent has been selected. We have already stated that the records show that the applicant has been considered and the sixth respondent has been selected on merits. In view of the above we do not see any merit in this application. Accordingly this application shall stand dismissed. No costs.