Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. V. Devadas S/O S. Veruvel vs Union Of India Through on 4 August, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Transferred Application No.896/2009 This the 4th day of August, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Dr. V. Devadas S/o S. Veruvel, R/o 134/1 Vikas Nagar, IIT Campus Roorkee, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Applicant ( By Shri N. Nanda Kumar with Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Advocates ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. 2. National Institute of Urban Affairs, I & II Floor, Core 4-B, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi through its President. 3. Shri Chetan Vaidya, R/o 9, Kesar Bagh, Vasna Road, Baroda-390015 Residing at Indo US Project, C/o FIRE Project, E-8/14, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Rattan Lal for Respondent No.1, and Ms. Sonia Arora for Respondents 2 & 3, Advocates ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Dr. V. Devadas, the applicant herein, having lost in the race of selection and appointment on the post of Director, National Institute of Urban Affairs, through present Transferred Application seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 18.12.2007 whereby Shri Chetan Vaidya, the third respondent, has been selected on the post under contention. In consequence of setting aside the order aforesaid, the applicant also seeks direction to be issued to the respondents to appoint him on the said post.
2. At the very outset, we may mention that the applicant had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.1665/2008 before the High Court of Delhi which came to be listed for hearing before a Honble Single Judge on 4.3.2008. At that stage, the grievance of the applicant was that there were no parameters for selection to the post of Director with the 2nd respondent, and that merely on the basis of an interview where no guidelines were provided the 3rd respondent had been selected. Making note of the contention of the applicant as referred to above, the High Court issued notices in the matter. While the writ petition was pending, the primary jurisdiction to deal with the matter came to be vested with the Tribunal and, therefore, vide order dated 26.2.2009 the matter has been transferred to this Tribunal and numbered as Transferred Application No.896/2009. Parties wee given opportunity to complete the pleadings, which could be done only by 8.2.2010. Vide order dated 22.3.2010 the matter was listed for arguments on 15.4.2010, whereafter the parties sought some adjournments and, therefore, arguments could be heard only on 28.7.2010. Learned counsel representing the applicant has not urged a word as regards there being no parameters for selection on the post of Director and the selection of the 3rd respondent having been made merely on the basis of an interview where no guidelines were provided. The plea may have been abandoned in view of the respective counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. Be that as it may, once no plea is raised on the issue as referred to above, we may concentrate only on such pleas on which the arguments have been addressed. In that context, we may say that the primary plea raised by the learned counsel representing the applicant is that the 3rd respondent would not answer the eligibility criteria as provided in the advertisement and, therefore, would be ineligible for even consideration, leave apart his selection and appointment. In that regard, it is pleaded that the 3rd respondent would not possess the requisite qualification as mentioned in the advertisement, whereas the applicant meets the highest standards of the requisite qualifications mentioned therein. It is pleaded that as per the advertisement the basic qualification required was Ph.D or post graduate degree with recognized published work in any social science discipline/urban and regional planning/management with specialization in fields related to urban economics and management, and that the 3rd respondent is neither a social scientist nor a qualified urban and regional planner; he just possesses masters degree in city planning but not in urban and regional planning. The two courses are stated to be entirely different having two different fields, and that comparison of qualifications of the applicant and that of the 3rd respondent would show that the applicant is much qualified than the respondent and has an edge over him. The eligibility criteria as provided in the advertisement is as follows:
1. Ph.D or Post Graduate with recognized published work in any social science discipline/ Urban and Regional Planning/Management with specialization in fields related to urban economics and management.
2. Published research work of high standard. Based upon the pleadings in para 2(v), the learned counsel would contend that the 3rd respondent is not Ph.D nor post graduate in the fields mentioned in the advertisement, like any social science discipline/Urban and Regional Planning/Management with specialization in fields related to urban economics and management. It is urged that unless one may be Ph.D or post graduate with the disciplines mentioned in the advertisement, he would not be eligible to be selected and appointed on the post of Director.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, all the three respondents have filed their separate replies. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed an additional affidavit as well. We may not refer to pleadings of all the respondents, as the cause of the applicant has been opposed on similar pleadings and grounds, and it may suffice to refer to the replies filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, including the additional affidavit filed jointly by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, and to some extent, the reply filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. In the reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it has inter alia been pleaded that an advertisement for the post of Director was issued in leading newspapers, and in response thereto, 19 applications were received. The search-cum-selection committee under the chairmanship of Secretary (UD) was constituted with the agreement of DOP&T, which consisted of the following members:
Dr. M. Ramachandran Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development Dr. R. K. Pachauri Director General, TERI Prof. Ram Mohan Rao Director, Indian School of Business Prof. Ashish Bose Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Economic Growth Prof. Om Prakash Mathur Professor of Urban Economic and Finance at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy The search-cum-selection committee short-listed six candidates for interview. Only five short-listed candidates appeared for interview held on 13.3.2007. It is pleaded that as per the policy and procedure of appointments carrying pay scale of `18400-22400 (pre-revised) and above in autonomous institutions, the selected candidate was recommended to DOP&T for obtaining approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), and that on receipt of approval of ACC, the 3rd respondent was appointed as Director of the 2nd respondent Institute, on which post he joined on 6.2.2008. It is then pleaded that the 3rd respondent possesses the essential qualifications and has also undertaken necessary research work of high standard and publication to his credit. Copy of the bio data of the 3rd respondent is annexed as Annexure R-6. It is further pleaded that the selection committee which consisted of senior and eminent persons, had after due interview, including the applicant, made its recommendations based on qualifications, experience and performance of the candidates at the interview, and that even though, Ph.D is one of the qualifications for the post of Director, it is not the only criteria based on which selection could be made. Other factors, like research experience with respect to policy related issues etc., are stated to have been taken into account by the selection committee while making its recommendations. The committee is said to have followed a rigorous method of selection and after taking into account the academic qualifications, knowledge and working experience of the candidates on contemporary urban issues and their ability to manage a policy-cum-research institute, made the selection.
4. In the joint additional affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, it has been pleaded that the 3rd respondent would answer the eligibility criteria required for appointment on the post in question, and in addition, he has a vast experience in working in the area of urban management and has been associated with number of bodies and organizations at senior levels, related with urban management, whereas the applicant would have no such experience at all. Insofar as, the comparative table prepared by the applicant with regard to his academic qualifications and experience as compared to that of the 3rd respondent is concerned, it is pleaded that the applicant is trying to give a different and self-serving interpretation to the terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules, and it is with a view to mislead the court that he has placed on record an absolutely false comparison chart of his qualifications and experience qua the 3rd respondent. The said comparative chart, it is stated, is factually incorrect, besides being misleading. The correct bio data, it is stated, would be as contained in Annexure RA-6 to the additional affidavit. The applicant, it is pleaded, has Ph.D degree, but the same would not have more weightage than a post graduate degree. It is further pleaded that even prior to appointment of the 3rd respondent as Director of the 2nd respondent Institute, in reply to an application under Right to Information Act, it was informed on 30.10.2007 that a Ph.D degree would be at par with a post graduate degree with recognized published work in any social science discipline/urban and regional planning/management with specialization in the fields related to urban economics and management. This information has been placed on records by the applicant himself. The applicant, it is then pleaded, is still working on the post of associate professor whereas the 3rd respondent has already worked on the post of professor long back, meaning thereby that the respondent has held a post higher than the present post being held by the applicant which itself would be proof of the respective merits and capabilities of the applicant and the respondent. On an overall appraisal of the suitability of all the candidates, it is further pleaded, it would be evident that the 3rd respondent is far more meritorious than the applicant.
5. The 3rd respondent in his counter reply states that he has done master of city planning from IIT Kharagpur and bachelor of architecture from MSU Baroda. It is stated that IIT Kharagpur gives master of city planning and master of regional planning degrees. Master of city planning includes number of regional planning subjects. The respondent has completed a training course in urban land taxation conducted by Land Reform Training Institute and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, USA in Taiwan in 1985. He claims to have published 26 papers on urban issues in national and international journals. In addition, over last 30 years, he claims to have prepared several research and consultancy reports for the Ministry of Urban Development, Planning Commission, State Governments, urban development authorities, urban local bodies as well as international organizations like the World Bank, US Agency for International Development (USAID), UNICEF, etc. Two of these reports are said to have been published by the World Bank, and three of his research works were sponsored and published by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO). The respondent states that he is Fellow Member of Institute of Town Planners, India (ITPI) and in the last three decades he had a wide range of experience manager of a leading consultancy organization with specific focus on urban development (1978-89); Assistant General Manager, National Housing Bank (1989-91); Professor of Architecture, MSU Baroda (1991-95). Before joining the 2nd respondent Institute, for fifteen years the respondent was with Indo-US FIRE (D) project and his last designation was Deputy Project Leader. The FIRE (D) project worked closely with National, State and Urban Local Governments, on urban project development and reforms. He worked with several local and State Governments, which includes working with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to issue Indias first municipal bond, assisted the Indore Municipal Corporation to improve its resource base with focus on property tax, helped Sangli Municipal Corporation to implement a city-wide community led toilets program for poor. He also participated in development of an urban training network covering 18 state level organizations, and also helped Ministry of Urban Development to prepare a model municipal law, as also assisted State Governments in Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Karnataka to review their state municipal laws. He was on two World Bank urban missions to Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. He was member of several study groups and committees set up by State and National Governments. He was member, Working Group on Urban development set up by the Planning Commission in 1989 for VIII Five Year Plan. He thus has experience of working with Government at various levels as well as international organizations in the field of urban planning and development. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, it is pleaded by the 3rd respondent that he is Ph.D in planning but does not have masters degree in urban planning, and that his M.Phil and MA from Gandhigram Rural University are in rural development, main focus of which would be on rural development and not urban development. It is further pleaded that most of the research papers of the applicant are in the field of rural development and rural energy, which would not be relevant to urban sector, and that he does not have a membership of Indian Institute of Town Planners, India or any other relevant professional bodies. It is then pleaded that the applicant does not even have the basic minimum qualification as per the advertisement and the recruitment rules. Even in academic field, at the time of interview, he was an Associate Professor at IIT Roorkee and not a full-fledged Professor. Post of Director of the 2nd respondent Institute is said to be equivalent to Pro-Vice Chancellor of University, which would be at least two positions above an Associate Professor. The applicant though apparently may have the minimum educational qualification for the position but he would not have the relevant professional experience, and his published research work is mostly in the area of rural development and not urban development, thus pleads the respondent.
6. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the counter replies filed on behalf of all the respondents, but reference during the course of arguments has been made only to rejoinder filed by him to the counter reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein as regards the eligibility of the 3rd respondent for the post of Director of the 2nd respondent Institute, it is pleaded in para 3 that for the post of Director of the Institute, prescribed qualification is of Ph.D or masters degree in any social science/urban and regional planning subject and, therefore, the 3rd respondent who has masters degree in city planning only would not answer the eligibility criteria for selection.
7. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. We may state at the very outset that the scope for judicial review in matters such as is in hand is limited, and the courts and tribunals would not normally embark upon comparative merits of candidates. Such an exercise is to be left to experts, and unless there be positive evidence to show that a particular candidate has been favoured or there is something absolutely glaring wrong in the matter of selection and appointment, the courts and tribunals would not interfere. It may be recalled that selection for the post of Director of the Institute was made by a search-cum-selection committee under the chairmanship of Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, which was constituted with the agreement of DOP&T, and comprised Director General, TERI; Director, Indian School of Business; Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Economic Growth; and Professor of Urban Economics and Finance at the National Institute of Public Finance and Police, as its members. It was a high powered committee consisting of subject experts as well. No allegations of mala fides have been made against the committee or any member constituting the committee in that regard. The pleading made in the Application is that the required basic qualification is Ph.D or post graduate degree with recognized published work in any social science discipline/urban and regional planning etc. It is not even pleaded that Ph.D or post graduate degree has to be in the subjects as mentioned above. When confronted with the position aforesaid, the learned counsel would state that even though it may not have been specifically stated that Ph.D or post graduate degree has to be in the subjects as mentioned in the advertisement, it has been so said in the rejoinder. In that context, reference is made to para 3 of the rejoinder filed by the applicant to the counter reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. The same reads as follows:
3) That with regard to para No.3, the petitioner again reiterates that for the post of Director of the National Institute of Urban Affairs prescribes qualification of Ph.D or Master Degree in any Social Science/Urban and Regional Planning subjects and therefore the Respondent No.3 qualified Master Degree in City Planning only would not be justified in any manner for the selection by the Selection Committee and thus if any counter is filed that the appointment of the Respondent No.3 is in consonance with the recruitment rules and as per proper procedure would not be perfect and it is against all merits of the recruitment rules. Such an averment, we are of the view, should have been made in the main Application so that the respondents would have a chance to rebut the same. Despite the fact that the applicant has not so pleaded as in para 3 of the rejoinder in the main Application and the respondents have not been given any chance to rebut the same, we have yet examined the contention raised by the learned counsel, but find no merit therein whatsoever. The eligibility criteria does not mention Ph.D or post graduate degree in any social science discipline/ urban and regional planning/management with specialization in fields related to urban economics and management. It rather prescribes Ph.D or post graduate degree with recognized published work in any social science discipline/urban and regional planning etc. The use of the word in the advertisement is of with and not in. Even though, it may be true that a candidate must be Ph.D or may have post graduate degree, and must have recognized published work in any social science subjects as mentioned in the advertisement, in our view, it is not essential for a candidate to be having Ph.D or post graduate degree in the disciplines as mentioned in the advertisement. In other words, if a candidate may be Ph.D or post graduate and may have recognized published work in any social science subjects etc., he would be eligible. Insofar as, the recognized published work in the disciplines referred to in the advertisement is concerned, the 3rd respondent answers the said eligibility criteria, as may be made out from the counter replies filed on behalf of all the respondents. Even though in the joint additional affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents Annexure RA-6 is stated to be bio data of both the applicant and the 3rd respondent, but we find that, may be, by mistake, the respondents have annexed the bio data of the applicant only. Insofar as, bio data of the 3rd respondent is concerned, that has been annexed with the counter reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent possesses the degree of Master of City Planning, IIT Kharagpur (1977); Bachelor of Architecture, MS University of Baroda (1974). The respondents have made a mention of the employment record of the 3rd respondent, which would show that since May 1995, he worked with TCG International Indo-USAID Financial Institutions Reforms and Expansion (FIRE) Project, New Delhi. He has been Principal Urban Management Advisor, FIRE; Professor of Architecture, Maharaja Sayaji University, Baroda and Advisor to Operations Research Group (1991-95); Assistant General Manager, National Housing Bank, New Delhi (1989-91); and Manager, Operations Research Group (ORG), Baroda (1978-1989). He was member on various committees and visited number of countries, and has experience from 1995-2004 as Deputy Program Manager/Urban Management Advisor, TCGI, Indo-US FIRE Project. His experience in various fields has also been mentioned, which relates to improving municipal resource mobilization, financing, city development strategies, capacity building, project development, private sector participation, project management and environmental impact assessment. He has number of other assignments also, again referred to in his bio data. His other related experience from 1995 has also been mentioned. He has to his credit 26 selected publications as well.
8. From the impressive array of the service credentials of the 3rd respondent, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel representing the applicant that the 3rd respondent would not answer the eligibility criteria. The applicant cannot be a judge of his own cause to say that he was better suited for the job. As long as the 3rd respondent answered the eligibility criteria, which, in our view, he did, his selection based on qualifications, experience and performance in interview cannot be faulted.
9. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have raised some preliminary objections, like, once the applicant has participated in the selection process, he would be estopped from challenging the same, and that the applicant has absolutely no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the 3rd respondent, particularly when the selection process is not tainted with mala fides. There would be no need to go into these preliminary objections, as on merits we find no case made out in favour of the applicant.
10. Finding no merit in this Transferred Application, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/