Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yogesh Kumar vs Union Public Service Commission on 31 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
Order Reserved on: 14.10.2015
Order Pronounced on: 31.05.2016
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
OA No-957/2014 OA No.2032/2014
With
OA No.1065/2014 OA No.958/2014
MA No.939/2014 MA No.860/2014
OA No.965/2014 OA No.260/2015
MA No.865/2014 OA No.2087/2014
OA No.169/2015
OA No.966/2014 OA No.2745/2014
MA No.863/2014 OA No.2059/2014
OA No.2975/2014
OA No.968/2014 OA No.905/2015
MA No.1253/2015 OA No.2126/2014
MA No.864/2014 OA No.3433/2014
OA No.1154/2014
OA No.975/2014 OA No. 8/2015
MA No.875/2014 MA No. 6/2015
OA No.976/2014
MA No.876/2014
OA No.1001/2014
OA No.1013/2014
OA No.1034/2014
OA No.1112/2014
OA No.1114/2014
MA No.1128/2015
OA No.1141/2014
MA No.1010/2014
MA No.1671/2014
OA No.1863/2014
MA No.1618/2014
OA No.2002/2014
MA No.1718/2014
2
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
OA No.957/2014
1. Yogesh Kumar (Principal),
S/o Late Shri Randhir Singh,
R/o E-25, Street No. 5, Sadat Pur Exten.,
Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-110094.
2. Surender Kumar Sharma (Principal)
S/o Shri Ram Nath Sharma,
R/o X/1481, Street No.5,
Raj Garh Colony, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
3. Sushil Kumar (Principal)
S/o Late Shri Sagar Mal,
R/o Flat No. 124-B, G.H. 10,
Sunder Apartments,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110087. -Applicants
Versus
UPSC & Ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education)
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi. -Respondents
OA No.1065/2014
MA No.939/2014
1. Dr. Sukbir Singh Yadav
S/o Sh. Har Gopal Yadav
R/o G-303, Arya Apartment, Sector-15,
Rohini, Delhi-110089.
2. Prem Ram
S/o Sh. Nari Ram,
R/o H.No.C-281/21, Ward No.2,
3
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
3. Kusum Lata,
W/o Dr. Surender Sauran,
R/o F-9, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-59.
4. Bharti Gupta,
W/o Sh. Pushpender
R/o C-2/247, Sector-17, Rohini,
Delhi-110089.
5. Ram Jeet
S/o Sh. Lal Sahai
R/o A-451, Pocket 00
Sector 2, Rohini, Delhi-85.
- Applicants
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No. 965/2014
MA No.865/2014
1. Roop Narain Chauhan
S/o Sh. Ram Karan Chauhan,
R/o 37, B/2 - Block B, Sai Baba Enclave,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
2. Prem Dutt Sharma
S/o Sh. Prakash Chandra Sharma,
R/o O-44, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
- Applicants
4
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No. 966/2014
MA No.863/2014
1. Virender Kumar
S/o Sh. Charan Singh,
R/o Shri Hari Apartment, Flat No.25,
Plot No.6, Sector-12, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110078.
2. Vishvambhar Dayalu,
S/o Sh. Jagveer Singh,
R/o H4/46E, Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi-110045.
3. Krishan Pal Panwar,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o RZ-1E, Gali No.2,
Durga Park, New Delhi-110045.
-Applicants
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
5
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No.968/2014
MA No.1253/2015
MA No.864/2014
1. Pramod Kumar Singh, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Jawahar Singh,
R/o 23-A, East Baldev Park,
Parwana Road, Delhi-110051.
2. Pramod Kumar Sharma, (PGT)
S/o Late Sh. Surya Dev Raj,
R/o D-969, Pkt-III, DDA Flats,
Bindapur, New Delhi-110059.
3. Pramod Kumar Satyarthi, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Babu Lal,
R/o Flat No.66, Pkt-5,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-110092.
4. Gajraj Singh, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Mawasi Lal,
R/o A-80, Dilshad Colony,
Delhi-110095.
5. Manoj Kumar, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Virpal Singh,
R/o C-34E, Gali No.6, Jagat Puri Extn.,
Delhi-110093.
6. Ramesh Kumar, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Jai Narain,
R/o A-1B/13C, Krishna Aptt.
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063.
7. Kuldeep Singh, (PGT)
S/o Ved Pal Singh Dahiya,
R/o H.No.32, Nangloi Extn.,
Part-IIA, Delhi-110041.
8. Sunita Yadav, (PGT)
S/o Bishambhar Dayal,
R/o WZ-639, Madi Pur Village,
6
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
Delhi-110063.
9. Rajesh Kumar, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Dhare Singh,
R/o GH-1/346, Ahchna Aptt.
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063.
10. Daya Kishan Bhardwaj, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Chhattar Singh,
R/o 433, VPO Barwala,
Delhi-110039.
11. Kuldip Kumar, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Om Pal Singh,
R/o B-3/23, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053.
12 Mahesh Chandra Sharma, (TGT Sanskrit)
S/o Sh. Ram Narayan Sharma,
R/o 395 'B' Main 20 Feet Road,
Mahalaxmi Enclave, Delhi-110094.
13. Dr. L.Surya Dev Rana, (TGT)
S/o Sh. Mohar Singh,
R/o Flat No.148, Pkt-4, Akash Ganga Aptt.,
Sec-24, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
14. Ms. Prerna Shekhar Tiwary, (TGT)
S/o Sh. M.S.Upreti,
R/o Flat No.231, Sec-12,
PM-2, DDA, SFS Flats,
Dwrkadeesh Aptt., Dwarka-110078.
15. Arun Kumar, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Sita Ram,
R/o A-375, New Ashok Nagar,
Delhi-110096.
16. Neeraj Kumari, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o 18-B, Pkt-A-II, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-III, Delhi-110096.
17. Rakesh Kumar, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Kali Ram Vashisht,
R/o 329, VPO Pehladpur Banger,
Delhi-110042.
18. Dr. Rajveer, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Gopi Chand,
7
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
R/o H.No.11, VPO Sultan Pur,
New Delhi-110030.
19. Vineet Kumar Gambhir, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash Gambhir,
R/o H.No.416, Sec-7,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
20. Anupama Kasana, (PGT)
W/o Sh. Swaraj Singh Chauhan,
R/o C-86/3, Gali No.2,
Opposite Office, Bhajan Pura,
Delhi-110053.
21. Bhuwan Chandra Tiwary, (PGT)
S/o Late Sh. Bala Dutt Tiwary,
R/o 101A, Dhawalgiri Apartment,
Sec-11, Noida, UP-201301.
22. Kuldeep Kumar, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Notan Lal,
R/o M-128, Ram Kirshan Vihar,
Plot No.29, Patpar Ganj, Delhi-110092.
23. Deepti Singh Karakoti, (PGT)
W/o Sh. Nikhil Singh,
R/o Flat No. 48, Vrindavan Apartments,
IP Extn., New Delhi.
24. Dr. Namrata Dhiman, (PGT)
W/o Shri K.G. Dhiman,
R/o H.No. 293, Galib Apartment,
Parwana Road, Pushpanjali,
Pitam Pura, Delhi.
25. Meena Sharma, (PGT)
W/o Sh. P.K. Sharma,
R/o PD -12/A , Pitam Pura, Delhi.
26. Mangha Singh, (PGT)
S/o Sh. Rayala Singh,
R/o E-13, Surya Vihar, Delhi.
27. Surendra Singh , (PGT)
S/o Sh. Mool Chand,
R/o B-307, MIG Flats,
Chitrakoot, Loni Road, Delhi.
28. Santosh Kumar Narendran,
S/o Sh. K. Narenderan,
8
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
R/o B-122/6, 1st Floor , Street No.6,
Krishna Nagar, Safadarjung Enclave,
Delhi-110029.
29. Anita Singh Yadav,
W/o Sh. Tapasvi Singh Yadav,
R/o B-5 & 6/4570, Vasant Kunj
New Delhi.
30. Gyan Prakash Singh
S/o Sh. Ranghunath Singh,
R/o C-1169, DDA Flats,
East of Lone Road, Delhi -110094.
31. Naresh Kumar
S/o sh. Jile Singh,
R/o B-56, Street No.2,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi -110094. ...Applicants.
Versus
UPSC & Ors.
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education)
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi. ........ Respondents
OA No.975/2014
MA No.875/2014
1. Chiranji Lal Meena,
S/o Sh. Badrilal Meena,
R/o RZF 40/17-C,
Sadh Nagar, Part-II,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045.
2. Surender Singh Meena,
S/o Shri Ram Charan Meena,
9
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
R/o Flat No.2, Delhi Govt. Flats,
Sector-11, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
3. Khem Chand Meena,
S/o Sh. Tabalya Ram Meena
R/o RZF-640, Sanjay Gandhi Marg,
Raj Nagar, Part-II,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110077.
4. Smt. Nitesh Meena,
W/o Shri Ramkesh Meena,
R/o G-9/9, First Floor,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
- Applicants
Versus
1. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
New Delhi-110069.
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Director,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Its Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Indraprastha Sachivalaya, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
-Respondents
OA No.976/2014
MA No.876/2014
1. Vijay Pal,
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh,
R/o D-104, Raj Nagar, Part-II,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110077.
2. Ganga Prasad,
S/o Sh. Tota Ram,
R/o G-163/RE-II, Gali No.3,
Paprawat Road, Prem Nagar,
10
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
Najafgarh, Neww Delhi-110043.
3. Ms. Seema Singh D/o Dr. R.B.Singh,
R/o 52, Anupam Apartments,
Mehrauli-Badarpur Road,
New Delhi-110068.
-Applicants
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No.1001/2014
Vijay Pal
S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh,
R/o H.No.1601/21, Kamla Nagar,
Near ESI Dispensary, Rohtak (Haryana).
- Applicant
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Secretary,
11
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No.1013/2014
Karamvir Singh
S/o Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/o H.No.736, Sec-6,
Bahadur Garh, Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana.
- Applicant
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No. 1034/2014
Arastu Upadhyay,
S/o Sh. N.P.Sharma,
R/o H.No.106, Pocket-A-1, Sector-05,
Rohini, Delhi.
- Applicant
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
12
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No. 1112/2014
Devender Kumar,
S/o Sh. Rambir Singh,
R/o H.No.22 Lokesh Gali,
Susheela Garden,
Mandoli, Delhi-93.
- Applicant
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No. 1114/2014
MA No.1128/2015
Satish Kumar Khanna,
Resident of 58, Indra Park,
Street No.14, Near Chander Nagar,
Delhi-110051.
- Applicant
Versus
1. Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. Section Officer (SPC II) UPSC,
13
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No.1141/2014
MA No.1010/2014
MA No.1671/2014
1. Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal Sharma,
R/o Flat No.697, Pocket-13,
DDA Flats, Dwarka Phase-I,
Manglapuri, New Delhi-110045.
2. Naveen Kumar Tomar,
S/o Sh. Sohan Veer Singh,
C/o O.P.Anand, P-87, Bihari Colony,
Gali No.4, Near Railway Line,
Shahdara, New Delhi-110032.
- Applicants
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No. 1863/2014
MA No.1618/2014
Mridula Pandey
Age 46 years,
Recruitment for Group 'A'
(Education Officer/Assistant Director)
In GNCT, Delhi),
W/o Sh. Surender Kumar Pandey
14
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
R/o C2B/31B, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058.
- Applicant
Versus
Union Public Service Commission of India,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069.
- Respondents
OA No.2002/2014
MA No.1718/2014
Dr. Parkash Chhillar,
W/o Sh. Satyanarain Chhillar,
R/o G-129, Ground Floor,
Pushkar Enclave, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
- Applicant
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No.2032/2014
Mythili Bector, (Vice Principal)
Aged About 52 years,
W/o Sh. C.M.Bector,
R/o C-182, Gold View Apartments,
Saket, New Delhi-110017.
15
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
- Applicant
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No.958/2014
MA No.860/2014
1. Dr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi,
S/o Sh. Bhoj Datt Tyagi,
R/o H.No.26, Chhattarpur Village,
New Delhi-74.
2. Abu Taliv,
S/o Sh. Kamruddin Ansari,
R/o 26/325-26, Trilok Puri,
Delhi-91.
3. Girwar Singh,
S/o Sh. M.S.Dalal,
R/o B-49-B, Krishan Vihar, Delhi-86.
4. Rajvir Singh,
S/o Sh. Babul al,
R/o B-681, GD Colony,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi-96.
- Applicants
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
16
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No.260/2015
1. Dr. Dinesh Chand,
Aged 43 years,
Designation: TGT Teacher,
S/o Sh. Lakhi Chand,
R/o H.No.384, 3rd Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi-110009.
2. Dr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari,
Age 46 years,
Designation: TGT Teacher
S/o Sh. Dudnath Tiwari,
R/o H.No.B-5/375, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-53.
3. Dr. Sunil Kumar,
Aged 42 years,
Designation: TGT Teacher,
S/o Sh. Dharam Vir Singh,
R/o D-405, DDA MIG Flat of Loni Road,
Delhi-110093.
- Applicants
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
17
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
OA No.2087/2014
Mukta Soni
Aged 53, Post- Principal,
W/o Sh. Anil K. Soni,
R/o H 120, Shivaji Park,
Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
- Applicant
Versus
UPSC & ors. Through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No.169/2015
R.S.Meena, (Roop Singh Meena)
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sh. Badri Prasad Meena,
R/o E-1/58, Sector-18, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
- Applicant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
1. The Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, Scope Complex,
New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
18
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
New Delhi.
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No.2745/2014
Anita Jain, TGT (Math),
Aged about 47 years,
W/o Sh. P.K.Jain,
R/o F-92A, West Jawahar Park,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
-Applicant
Versus
UPSC & ors. Through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
New Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No.2059/2014
Anita Yadav, (52 years) (Middle Headmasters)
W/o Sh. Yeshveer Singh,
R/o H.No. D-75/2, Street No.5,
Mahavir Enclave,
New Delhi-110045.
- Applicant
Versus
1. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
New Delhi-110069.
19
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Indraprastha Sachivalya, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
- Respondents
OA No.2975/2014
Harpreet Kaur
Aged about 43 years,
W/o Dr. G.S. Jolly,
R/o 15/21-A, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
- Applicant
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No.905/2015
Dr. Yogesh Kumar
Aged 50 years,
S/o Sh. Bhagwant Singh,
R/o RZD-4A, Nihal Vihar,
New Delhi-110041.
- Applicant
Versus
20
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
- Respondents
OA No. 2126/2014
1. Arvind Kumar, TGT (Maths),
Aged about 43 years,
S/o Sh. Nanhe Lal Shakya,
R/o 2110, DDA Janta Flats, GTB Enclave,
Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.
2. Brij Mohan, Vice Principal,
Aged about 49 years,
S/o Late Sh. Chhatrapal,
R/o H.No.2259, Sec-2, Faridabad,
Haryana, Sarvodaya Co-Ed, Senior Sec. School,
Munirka Village, Delhi-110067.
3. Padam Singh, PGT (Physics),
Aged about 44 years,
S/o Sh. Narain Singh,
R/o 55-C, Pkt-B, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095.
4. Sandeep Mehrotra, TGT (Hindi),
Aged about 43 years,
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das Mehrotra,
R/o A-402, S.P.S.Apartment IInd,
Radhey Shyam Park, Main G.T.Road,,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad-201005.
5. Manju Bala Chawla, Vice Principal,
Aged about 53 years,
D/o Sh. Niamat Rai Vij,
R/o C-42, Vivek Vihar, Delhi-110095.
21
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
6. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Vice Principal,
Aged about 47 years,
Sh. Harpal Singh Yadav,
R/o 1/10A Flat No. C-3, Sec-5,
Rajender Nagar, Sahibabad,
Ghaziababd-201005.
7. Veenu, PGT (Economics),
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Sh. Anil Kumar,
R/o WZ-1427-D, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046.
8. Vimlesh Kaushik, TGT (Natural Science),
Aged about 45 years,
W/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar Kaushik,
R/o 309, DDA SFS Flats, Pkt-1,
Sec-1, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
-Applicants
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No. 3433/2014
Dr. Puran Singh, PGT (English),
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Sh. Ballu Ram,
R/o D-3/26, Ground Floor,
Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-89.
- Applicant
Versus
22
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
-Respondents
OA No. 1154/2014
Kanchan Jain
D/o Sh. Shukal Chand Jain,
P-5, Second Floor, Naveen Shahdra,
Delhi-110032.
- Applicant
Versus
1. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, Players Building,
New Delhi-110002.
3. The Director of Education,
G.N.C.T. of Delhi,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.
- Respondents
OA No. 8/2015, MA No.6/2015
1. Rashmi Vashishtha (Lecturer),
Aged about 47 years,
W/o Sh. Manoj Vashishtha,
R/o Flat No.879, Delhi Admn. Flats,
23
OA No-957/2014
with connected cases
Gulabi Bagh, Delhi.
2. Rajesh Sharma (Lecturer),
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sh. Hari Krishna Sharma,
H.No. X-1348, Gali No.2,
Rajgarh Colony, Delhi-37.
- Applicants
Versus
UPSC & ors. through
1. The Chairman,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary (Education),
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat, Sham Nath Marg,
Delhi.
- Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, Shri Yashpal Rangi,
Shri K.S. Chauhan with Shri Ajit Ekka & Shri R.K.
Sharma Shri Anoop Kumar, Shri Sudarshan Rajan,
Shri T.D. Yadav & Shri Satya Mitra Garg, for applicants
Shri Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi Gupta and
Ms. Joymoti Mize, for respondents)
ORDER
Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
This batch of 28 cases came to be heard together and reserved for orders together, and are, therefore, being disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, we shall first take up the facts of the case as emerged in the first case, i.e., OA No.957/2014, and then 24 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases discuss only the differences in respect of other cases from that case, if any.
OA No.957/2014
2. The three applicants of this OA had filed an MA No. 861/2014 praying for being allowed to join together in filing of this OA, which MA could never be allowed during the course of numerous hearings of the case. That MA under Rule 4(5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, is allowed.
3. The three applicants of this OA were aspirants for appointment to the posts of Education Officers (EO, in short) under Directorate of Education (DoE, in short), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, represented by Respondents No.2 & 3, and are aggrieved by the respondents not having allowed them to appear at the interview held in Office of Respondent No.3 for appointment to the said posts.
4. There were 20 vacancies of EOs. The Respondents No.2 & 3 had sent a requisition in this regard to Respondent No.1-Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, in short) for undertaking selections to the aforesaid posts. On receipt of such requisition, the Respondent No.1 UPSC issued an Advertisement in the Employment News for filling up the aforesaid vacancies, stipulating that the requisite qualifications as required for appointment to the post of EO (DoE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, must be possessed by the candidates as on the closing date, i.e., on 11.02.2010. 25
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases As per the copy of the Advertisement placed at Annexure A-2, the said qualifications were as follows:-
"(A) Educational (i) at least 2nd class master degree from a recognized university or equivalent in Humanities or Science (ii) degree/diploma in teaching/education from a recognized University/Institution (B) Experience:- 10 years experience of teaching and/or Educational Administration including at least three years in a responsible administrative capacity.
(C) Desirable:- (1) Experience as an Inspecting Officer in the field of Education. (ii) Knowledge of Hindi".
5. Since all the three applicants were already serving as Principals of the Schools under Respondent No.3, and they considered themselves to be fulfilling the aforesaid eligibility conditions as prescribed in the said Advertisement, as well as in the RRs, they applied through proper channel, clearly mentioning their qualifications in the application form, and annexing the required certificates along with that application form, in order to be able to prove their eligibility. Through the Table reproduced in Para 4.2 of the OA, applicants have pointed out that apart from having more than 10 years' teaching experience, all the three applicants were also having the requisite educational administration experience of more than three years in responsible administrative capacities, as per Para-(B) 'Experience' requirement cited in the Advertisement (supra). It has been submitted by the applicants that while only on the basis of 10 years' teaching experience alone, they were entitled to be treated as eligible for the said post, however, taking into account their administrative experience as well, their candidature could 26 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases not have been overlooked in any manner whatsoever, while applying any kind of short listing criteria.
6. Since the Advertisement as brought out at Annexure A-2 had not prescribed any mode of selection, therefore the Respondent No.1 issued a Corrigendum dated 29.04.2012, whereby it was stipulated that there would first be a written test for filling up the posts advertised. In response to an RTI query of one of the candidates for the said posts, Respondent No.1 clarified through Annexure-9 that eligibility will be determined first, and thereafter the candidates would be permitted to participate in the selection process. It was also indicated in the same RTI reply that as per the raw data available, as on the date of such reply dated 25.03.2010, 1615 applications had been received till then, and allotted Roll Numbers in response to the Advertisement, but since the process was then at an initial stage, the actual total number of applications may change. It was further disclosed in that RTI reply that the criteria and mode of selection for the post concerned will be decided at the time of scrutiny of the applications. In regard to the query regarding the total number of applications received by Respondent No.1 from candidates belonging to SC category, it was informed that category- wise data was yet to be processed. In response to the query in regard to the date of written test likely to be held in future, it was informed that it would be decided later, at the stage of scrutiny.
7. All the three applicants of this OA were issued Admit Cards to appear in the written test, which was scheduled to be held by the 27 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases respondents, and they appeared in the written test held on 29.04.2012 from 2.00 p.m. to 4.00.p.m. The final result of the written test was declared by Respondent No.1 on 01.08.2013, and 82 candidates, including Applicant No.1 of this OA, were declared successful in the Result Notice, and it was notified through Annexure A-4 that he had been short-listed and found suitable for interview provisionally.
8. Thereafter, all of a sudden, the Respondent No.-1-UPSC revised the result on 27.09.2013 through Annexure A-5, and declared a total of 415 candidates as successful in the written test. Through this final result, all the three applicants of the present OA were declared successful and they then expected to be called for the interview. However, to their surprise, the respondents once again changed the result, and issued the impugned letters dated 06.03.2014 at Annexure-1 (colly), intimating all the three applicants of this OA that their candidature had been cancelled by Respondent No.1 due to their lacking in essential qualifications and experience for the posts of EOs as per the Advertisement. Three days prior to that, on 03.03.2014, the Respondent No.1 had issued letters through Annexure-1A to only 69 candidates, asking them to appear at the interviews, as per the date and time schedule given against their individual names.
9. The applicants of this OA before us are aggrieved that neither their names were included in the final list prepared by Respondent No.1 for such interviews, nor has any reason been recorded for not calling them at the interviews.
28
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
10. The applicants approached the respondents to discover the reasons for their not having allowed them to appear at the interviews, in spite of their having been declared earlier to have been successful in the written test, and inclusion earlier of their names in the list of candidates found eligible to appear at the interviews. The applicants then learnt that many similarly placed persons, who had been selected as Principals along with them, and were still serving as Principals, had been called for such interviews, but no reason was assigned by the respondents for their having treated the applicants differently.
11. The applicants of this OA had pointed out the names of at least three candidates, who were called for the interviews, and who are/were similarly placed as the applicants of this OA, as per the selection list of Principals from the post of Vice-Principal, and the Seniority List of Principals, annexed through Annexures A-10 (Colly) & A-11.
12. The applicants of this OA immediately represented to the respondents through Annexure A-7 (Colly) dated 04.03.2014, 06.03.2014 & 07.3.2014 praying for their claims also to be considered, and issuance of Admit Cards to them, to allow them also to appear at the interviews scheduled to be held from 24.03.2014 till 28.03.2014. However, the Respondent No.1 did not retract the impugned letter dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure A-1) regarding cancellation of their candidatures. 29
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
13. The applicants have faulted the action of the respondents on many reasons and on many grounds. They have faulted the respondents for having first declared only 82 candidates as successful through the Result Notice dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure A-4), and then having revised that Result Notice on 27.09.2013 through Annexure-5, declaring 415 candidates as successful, and thereafter going back on both of these Notices in the first of which Applicant No.1 was declared as successful, and in the 2nd of which all the three applicants were declared as successful.
14. The applicants have also alleged that in fact some of the candidates who had been finally declared as eligible by Respondent No.1 to appear at the interviews had not even annexed the necessary documents in support of their educational qualifications, and certificates regarding status of their caste and experience, and that this fact is evident from the remarks recorded against their names, which documents they had been permitted to furnish at the time of the interviews, meaning thereby that the necessary documents to prove eligibility could be furnished even at the time of the interview also. The applicants have, therefore, found fault with this action of the respondents, since they had furnished all the necessary documents to prove their eligibility even before the last date of filing of the applications. They are aggrieved at having been declared ineligible, without giving them even an opportunity of being heard, while candidates who did not even furnish the necessary documents to prove their eligibility had been called for the interviews. They have alleged that 30 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases there was no reason or material available with the respondents to take a view different than the view taken at the time of issuing the Admit Cards for appearing in the written test, and declaration of the final result thereafter.
15. The applicants are further aggrieved that the respondents have actually called even some Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs, in short) and Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs, in short) for the interviews, whereas many of the Principals, and some of the other applicants, had not been called for the interviews, in spite of their possessing more than the prescribed experience and educational qualifications. The applicants had further found fault with the respondents that when they had been declared successful in the written test in August 2013 itself, the respondents had sufficient time to inform them about the reasons whatsoever, which could have been made the basis to deny their participation in the interviews. They have therefore found fault with the respondents for not having justified the impugned orders, by not mentioning any reasons whatsoever to declare them ineligible for the interviews. The interviews were then scheduled from 24.03.2014 to 28.03.2014, and this OA came to be filed on 18.03.2014.
16. The applicants had taken the ground that the actions of the respondents have been in violation of their rights under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, as other successful candidates who were below in merit than them, have been called for the interviews, without any justification. They have further taken the ground that Principals 31 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases have been left out while PGTs have been called for interviews. They have further taken the ground that the respondents have acted in violation of principles of natural justice, as they were not given any opportunity of hearing before the impugned letter dated 03.03.2014 was issued. They have taken the further ground that the respondents were bound to disclose the reasons for not calling them to appear at the interviews even after they had been declared successful in the written test on the basis of their merit and had been declared eligible earlier to appear at the interviews. They have taken the further ground that the respondents have failed to take into account that the applicants meet all the eligibility conditions and are highly qualified, but it is strange that even though they have done excellent job in the field of education, as they have received awards also, but still they have been denied even eligibility to appear at the interviews.
17. They had explained thereafter the cases of some individuals who were serving as PGTs, and were appointed as EO directly, and were serving as Additional Director in the DoE, Respondent No.3, while the applicants had been denied opportunity even to appear at the interviews. It was further submitted that one of the applicants in the examination had been initially treated to be ineligible but after having received all the requisite documents, the respondents had treated him to be eligible, and had issued him Admit Card to appear in the written test.
18. They have further taken the ground that the cancellation of the candidature of the applicants could have been done by the respondents 32 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases only after giving them due notice, and by recording the reasons in writing to explain their position, without which the civil rights, which had accrued in favour of the applicants, have been denied to them thereafter, arbitrarily and without following the principles of natural justice.
19. It was also submitted that since Respondent No.3 had himself issued experience certificates to the applicants by taking into account the eligibility conditions mentioned in the Advertisement, and in some of the experience certificates, it had been categorically mentioned that the candidates meet the eligibility criteria, Respondent No.1 could not have taken a contrary view, as the final authority to determine eligibility is the user department. They have further taken the ground that in the Advertisement as published, it was no where provided for that even after qualifying in the written test, a candidate can be denied opportunity of appearing at the interview by applying another short-listing criteria.
20. They have taken the further ground that in the impugned order it has nowhere been mentioned as to what was the short-listing criteria, which was resorted to for calling only 69 candidates for the interviews, and that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rules cannot be interpreted differently while dealing with similarly placed persons, and when in the past TGTs/PGTs/Vice Principals having more than 10 years' teaching experience were appointed to the post of EO (DoE), without raising any issue of their having any exclusive experience in administrative capacity, such an objection could not have been raised by the respondents, as it amounted to discrimination with the 33 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases applicants, and other similarly placed persons. They had further taken the ground that when the candidates called for the interview had not annexed their experience and educational certificates, they could not have been treated as eligible for want of requisite certificates, while the applicants have been treated as ineligible in spite of providing the requisite documents.
21. The applicants had further taken the ground that cancelling the candidature of the applicants just about two weeks before the scheduled date for interview was illegal and unjustified, while the applicants had been left to believe and expect fair consideration of their candidature and appointment to the post applied for. In the result, the applicants had prayed for the following reliefs and Interim Relief:-
Reliefs:
"i) To declare the action of respondents in declaring the applicants ineligible for appointment to the post of Education Officer in Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
ii) To direct the respondents to declare the applicants as eligible candidate for appointment to the post of Education Officer, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and appoint them to the said post of Education Officer subject to their performance in the selection process.
iii) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 06.03.2014.
iv) To allow the OA with costs.
v) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships
of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
Interim Relief:
34
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases Pending final adjudication of the OA, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicants to appear in interview scheduled w.e.f. 24.03.2014 till 28.03.2014. In case, the applicants are not allowed to appear in interview, a grade injustice and irreparable loss would be caused to the applicants. The applicants have also a prima facie case in their favour as such they are entitled for grant of interim relief by this Hon'ble Tribunal".
22. The prayer for Interim Relief was considered on 24.03.2014, and the applicants of this OA, along with the applicants of a few other OAs, were ordered to be allowed provisionally to appear at the interviews, subject to the condition that the result of the candidates shall be kept in sealed cover and shall further be subject to outcome of these OAs. It was further directed that the results in sealed cover would not be opened till the OAs are disposed of, or till otherwise directed by the Tribunal.
23. A Transfer Petition No.134/2014 came to be filed before the Hon'ble Chairman, CAT in OA No.330/2014 of Allahabad Bench pointing out that 21 similar cases were already pending adjudication before the Principal Bench. Considering the pleas, the Hon'ble Chairman allowed the PT No.134/2014 and the OA No.330/2014 of Allahabad Bench was also transferred and listed for hearing along with the 21 other related cases. The number of cases clubbed thereafter got increased over time, and, later, all the connected matters came to be listed together for the purpose of hearing, and were heard and reserved for orders.
24. The Respondent-UPSC filed their counter reply on 03.11.2014. As a preliminary submission, it was submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court 35 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases has upheld the power of short listing to be exercised by the UPSC, subject to two conditions, firstly that the same should be on some rational and objective basis, and secondly that there is a prescribed method for short listing in the Rules or Advertisement for the post concerned, and that that method alone should be followed, as was held in the following cases:-
"1. A.P. Public Service Commission vs. Tage Habung & Ors.
2013 (7) SCC 737;
2. B. Ramakichenin Balagandhi vs. Union of India & Ors.
2008 (1) SCC 362;
3. M.P. Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293;
4. Govt. of A.P. vs. P. Dilip Kumar 1993 (2) SCC 310".
25. In the instant case also, it was pointed out that in the Note below the Advertisement itself, it was mentioned that if the number of applications received is too large, then the respondents may adopt any of the methods to shortlist the number of candidates to be interviewed. It was further submitted that it was specifically provided that the essential qualifications as prescribed in the Advertisement are only the minimum qualifications, and that the short listing criteria could always have higher qualifications.
26. It was submitted that since 1753 applications had been received for just 20 posts of EO, the Respondent-UPSC decided to short list the candidates for interview by resorting to the short listing criteria of Recruitment Test, which had already been provided for in the 36 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases Advertisement concerned. Therefore, through a Corrigendum, notice was put on the website giving the time table and scheme of the written test.
27. It was further submitted that as per the practice followed by Respondent-UPSC in almost all selections at the stage of recruitment test, no scrutiny of documents is done initially to determine eligibility, and the candidature is decided only on the basis of whether the applications have been received in time, and as to whether the applicants are over-aged etc. It was submitted that the detailed scrutiny of documents is undertaken only after the result of the Recruitment Test has been declared, and then the Respondent-UPSC scrutinizes the documents to see as to whether the candidates meet the criteria in respect of educational qualifications and experience as mentioned in the Advertisement.
28. It was submitted that the result of the Recruitment Test was declared and 82 candidates were shortlisted provisionally for the 20 posts available, on 01.08.2013 subject to verification of documents. Thereafter, when in-house scrutiny of the said candidates was undertaken, it was found that very few of them were found eligible for being called for interview, because of which the Respondent-UPSC declared additional result on 27.09.2013, whereby a total of 415 candidates were declared to be shortlisted after the Recruitment Test, including the earlier 82 candidates. These 415 candidates were duly and 37 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases properly informed through the Result Notice that only such candidates, who satisfy/fulfil all the eligibility conditions, shall be called for interviews. It was further decided that the scrutiny of documents will be done by the experts in the field in question, and the Respondent-UPSC had thereafter engaged the services of the two experts to scrutinize the documents of all these 415 short-listed candidates, in order to ensure reasonableness, transparency and fairness in the independent scrutiny. It was submitted that, thereafter, only those candidates who met the eligibility criteria as per the report of the experts were actually called for interviews.
29. It was pointed out that as per the RRs for the posts of EO (DoE) notified on 12.01.1978, the posts are to be filled 50% by direct recruitment and remaining 50% by promotion. For the purpose of promotion, the feeder posts are Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Principal, Teacher's Training Institute; the Deputy Education Officer; Plan Evaluation Officer; Lecturer; State Institute of Education; Research Officer; Senior School Inspector; Senior Counsellor; Science Consultant, and Field Advisor; all of them with 2 years' service rendered in that grade after appointment thereto on regular basis. The said RRs were brought on record as Annexure R-2.
30. It was submitted that when the subject experts carefully scrutinised the documents and dossiers of all the 415 candidates as per the RRs, the advertisement, the corrigendum, and the 38 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases duties/responsibilities of the post in question along with other relevant material, finally only 69 candidates were found by those experts to be eligible in all respects to be called for the interviews. The remaining candidates were not called for the interviews, as they did not meet either the Essential Educational Qualifications, or the Essential Administrative Experience, or both. Accordingly only, such candidates were informed about the reasons for rejection of their application through letters like the letter impugned in the present OA, much before the interviews were conducted from 24.03.2014 to 28.03.2014. It was submitted that the applicants of this OA were not called for interviews, and their candidatures were rejected, as they did not have the administrative experience as required under the Advertisement, and as per the RRs for the post in question.
31. It was submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has crystallized the law on the scope of judicial review in matters of selection of candidates by an Expert Body, and has categorically held that Courts and Tribunals should refrain and be slow in interfering with the power of selection of candidates, which falls in the domain of the Expert Body to determine the suitability and select the most deserving candidates from the pool of eligible candidates, as held in the cases of Dr. Basavaiha vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 372; Dalpat Ahasaheb Solunke and Ors. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 305; Ramanand Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 1996 (4) SCC 64; and M.V. Thimmaiah vs. UPSC & Ors. 2008 (2) SCC 119.
39
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
32. It was further submitted that even the answering Respondent- UPSC has no basis to question the wisdom of the two experts in the concerned discipline, whose services had been engaged to scrutinize the documents of all the 415 candidates who were declared successful at the Recruitment Test, and who had very carefully scrutinized the documents and dossiers before finding only 69 candidates to be eligible in all respects.
33. In regard to the individual applicants of this OA, it was explained that applicant No.1 was TGT from 29.01.1982 to 05.01.1994, PGT from 06.01.1994 to 03.05.2007, and Principal from 03.05.2007 till the closing date, and was found to be ineligible for the post in question by subject experts due to the fact that his Administrative experience in responsible capacity fell short by three months from the requirement of the Advertisement. Similarly, Applicant No.2 was having teaching experience, and was Principal from 26.06.2007 till the closing date, but his Administrative experience fell short by five months. The Applicant No.3 was Vice Principal from 30.05.2007 to 24.03.2009, and became a Principal from 24.03.2009 onwards, but his Administrative experience till the closing date also fell short by five months, even after including both the periods of his Vice-Principalship and Principalship. It was further pointed out that even a bare perusal of the application form submitted by the applicants pursuant to the Advertisement clearly showed that they neither possessed nor did they claim to possess the necessary minimum 40 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases three years of Administrative experience, which was one of the necessary criteria to be eligible for the posts in question.
34. It was denied that the Respondent-UPSC had in any manner changed the final result by first including the names of the applicants in the list of the successful candidates in the Recruitment Test but thereafter not including their names in the list of candidates to be called for the interviews. Thereafter the respondents had explained the experience in respect of the particular candidates whose names had been mentioned by the applicants in the OA in Para 4.12 of the OA. Since they are not party-respondents in the present OA, we need not discuss the details regarding their eligibility in detail here. It was further submitted that the answering Respondent-UPSC was under no obligation to intimate the reasons if an ineligible candidate was not being called for interview. Still such an intimation was sent to the ineligible applicants, through the impugned letter dated 06.03.2014. It was denied that any candidate who was not eligible for being considered for the post in question had been called for interviews. However, in cases where any candidate had claimed to have the necessary essential qualifications, including Administrative experience in the application form as filled by him, though he had failed to annex proof thereof, his case was not rejected out-rightly, and such persons were permitted to appear for the interview with the pre-condition that documents to prove their eligibility would have to be submitted on the date of the interview, and if they had failed to do so, then they would not have been permitted to appear for the interview, without meeting the eligibility requirements. 41
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
35. It was further pointed out that in the last similar recruitment case, experience as Principal/Vice-Principal/Headmaster/Education Officer /Inspector of Schools and comparable duty posts had all been treated as experience in responsible administrative capacity. It was submitted that some of the candidates who were performing additional duties like House Master/Time Table In-Charge/Examination In-Charge/Co-ordination work etc. had also claimed to possess experience in a responsible administrative capacity, but such experience and the experience as Physical Education Instructor/Teacher had not been counted as relevant, and nor has experience acquired as Casual/Part- Time/Honorary/Daily Wages/on hourly basis/Guest Faculty/own school/Research Officer been considered.
36. It was denied that the answering Respondent-UPSC had acted in violation of the rights of the applicants under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It was further denied that any other candidate identically placed as the applicants had been permitted to appear at the interview, and/or any discrimination had been meted out to the applicants. It was submitted that the candidature of the applicants had been rejected only by the experts appointed for scrutiny of applications, for not having relevant administrative experience, and that the advice of experts had been accepted by the Respondent-UPSC. It was submitted that the answering respondent-UPSC had followed a uniform policy while rejecting the applications of 346 candidates who had passed at the Recruitment Test, on various grounds, but had acted bonafide, and 42 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases denied any violation of principles of natural justice. It was submitted that it was made clear to all the candidates at many stages that merely clearing the Recruitment Test will not give them the right to be called for the interview if they did not meet the eligibility criteria. It was further submitted that a mere perusal of the application form of the applicants, as also the documents furnished by them, clearly shows that none of them meet the eligibility criteria of having minimum three years of experience in administrative capacity, and, therefore, they could not have been called for an interview.
37. It was submitted that it cannot be said that the applicants were not aware of the fact that in order to be called for the interview, they will have to be eligible in accordance with the requirement of the Advertisement, and since they are ineligible, they do not any right to stake any claim to the post of EO (DoE). It was further denied that the Respondent-UPSC was under any legal obligation to either call for an explanation from the applicants qua their eligibility, or that any rights, much less any civil rights had accrued to the applicants, just on the basis of their having been declared successful in the written test, which right, if it had accrued, could not have been taken away arbitrarily, in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the result of the screening Recruitment Test had clearly mentioned that the same was provisional, and that out of that list only those candidates who meet the eligibility criteria fully will be called for the interview. 43
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
38. It was further submitted that the answering Respondent-UPSC being a Constitutional Body, established for the purpose of carrying out the recruitments for the Government, it has caused mind to be applied by the Experts carefully to all the documents which were submitted by various applicants to the post, in order to determine if a particular candidate is eligible or not for performing its functions, and for achieving this objective it could have devised its own procedures and methods to fulfil and discharge its Constitutional obligations and duties. It was submitted that the UPSC could not have mechanically accepted any Experience Certificates or other documents submitted by the applicants, only because the same had been issued by a Government Authority. It was denied that the answering Respondent-UPSC has acted in any manner contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited cases, or that lesser qualified people have been appointed in any manner whatsoever. It was submitted that even the Experience Certificates submitted by the applicants in the OA clearly show that they do not possess the necessary experience requirement for the post in question, even though it had been issued to the applicants, so that they could apply for the appointment to the post in question. It was submitted that even though the applicants of this OA were not entitled to be interviewed, however, in view of the interim relief granted by the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 24.03.2014, without prejudice to the stand of the Respondent-UPSC, the applicants were interviewed on 16.06.2014.
44
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
39. The Respondent-UPSC had also explained the case of one Shri Girwar Singh, as to how his candidature was considered, in view of the Corrigendum dated 11.07.-06.2011, in view of the decision conveyed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated 19.11.2010, in pursuance of the orders of this Tribunal dated 07.10.2010 in OA No.1411/2010 passed by this Principal Bench of the Tribunal.
40. The applicants filed a rejoinder on 06.04.2015 more or less reiterating their contentions as made out in the OA. It was submitted by them that the respondents have in their counter reply not assigned any specific reasons as to why the applicants were not treated as eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of EO (DoE), even after it was clear that they meet all the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the Advertisement. It was also submitted that no documents had been annexed by the respondents to substantiate their contentions regarding appointment of experts, and as to the manner in which the experts had scrutinized the applications of all the candidates. It was submitted that the respondents have not treated the similarly placed persons serving as Teachers, as eligible, and when someone working as PGT could be treated to have Administrative experience on account of conducting examination and computerisation of School Education etc., then the applicants herein also could not have been treated to be ineligible, as all the applicants have conducted examinations in their Schools, and were appointed to do other Educational Administrative Work also. 45
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
41. It was submitted that the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong in not clarifying the issue regarding eligibility in their Advertisement in advance itself, and then, thereafter, raising objections on a selective basis. It was further submitted that in the words of the Advertisement, the candidates required to have 10 years' experience in teaching or Administration, and that Academic Planning, Educational Administration, School Inspection and conduct of examination works etc. have not been treated on a equal footing. It was submitted that if the stand taken by the Respondent-UPSC is accepted, there would be chaos in the Education Department, as all the Teachers would start insisting for particular types of postings, in order to gain Administrative experience.
42. It was further submitted that posting at a particular place cannot be made the basis to treat a candidate eligible or ineligible when all the applicants have the same type of experience which has even been verified from their employers. Therefore, it was prayed that the OA be allowed with exemplary cost.
43. The above discussion of the pleadings of both the sides more or less covers the pleadings in 26 other cases also, with the pleadings in only one case having been found to be slightly different. OA-975/2014 46 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
44. In this slightly different case also, most of the pleadings were the same, and need not be repeated here once again. The four applicants of this OA have claimed that in the result published on 01.08.2013, they were declared qualified on their own merit. They had cited from Swamy's Compilation on Reservation and Concessions, 9th Edition, 2008, at page 716 of which as Item No.59, PGT experience had been described as Administrative Experience. The applicants of this O.A. had assailed the prescription of marks for the viva-voce on the strength of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana 1985 (4) SCC 417, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when only 61 posts were advertised and candidates more than 20 times the number of available vacancies had been called for the viva voce test, there was likelihood of bias vitiating the selection process, and finally it was held that the whole selection process undertaken by the Haryana Public Service Commission was vitiated. They had also cited the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Vijay Syal vs. State of Punjab 2003 (9) SCC 401, in which case, relying upon the Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra), it was held that if viva voce test was to be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner, to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of a candidate, the interview must take anything between 10 to 30 minutes since it seeks to assess the candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, 47 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases intellectual and moral integrity. It was, however, held that some of these qualities can be evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by viva voce test, depending upon the constitution of the Interview Board.
45. The applicants of this OA had also relied upon the cases of K. Manju Sree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) SCC 512; P.K. Ramachandra Iyer vs. Union of India 1984 (2) SCC 141; Umesh Chandra Shukla vs. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 721; and Durga Charan Misra vs. State of Orissa (1987) 4 SCC 640. It was submitted that it is settled legal position that once the result of an examination has been declared, second result cannot be declared, and through the declaration of the second result dated 27.09.2013, the applicants have been disqualified in a malafide and arbitrary manner, who were otherwise eligible for consideration as per the RRs, and were even otherwise entitled for consideration on the basis of relaxation as per the Rules as Schedule Tribe candidates.
46. They had pointed out to the DoP&T Office Memorandum regarding DPCs dated 10.04.1989; in which it has been laid down that for 01 vacancy 05 officers have to be considered by the DPC, for 02 vacancies 08 officers have to be considered by the DPC, for 03 vacancies 10 officers have to be considered by the DPC, and for 04 officers and more, officers have to be considered, three times the number of vacancies, which is the Rule prescribed in respect of promotion through DPC. Seeking shelter under this principle of 1:3 ratio, they had assailed the respondents 48 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases having declared the results of 415 candidates for the examination in the ratio of 1:21, in so far as the 20 posts were concerned. They had also pointed out that in a separate instruction issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology, OM dated 29.07.2013, concerning screening and selection process in the case of direct recruitments, the number of persons to be called for interviews has been related to the number of vacancies in a smaller ratio of 1:2.5 times the number of vacancies, by prescribing that for 01 vacancy 05 candidates will be called for interview, for 02 vacancies 09 candidates will be called for interview, for 03 vacancies 12 candidates will be called for interview, for 04 vacancies 15 candidates will be called for interview, and for 05 and more vacancies, 2.5 times the number of vacancies.
47. They had, therefore, termed the declaration of the second result dated 27.09.2013 by the Respondent-UPSC, after the declaration of first result dated 01.08.2013 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being much beyond these ratios of 1:25 and 1:3. They had assailed that a candidate junior to the Applicant No.1 of this OA had been invited for the interview, and in respect of others, the details were yet to be verified. In the result, in slightly differently worded prayers for reliefs, the four applicants of this OA had prayed for the following reliefs and Interim Relief:-
"Reliefs:-
a) summon the records of the case.
b) pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the official respondents to conduct the 49 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases interview as per the merit list/result dated 01.08.2013, prepared by the respondent No.1, with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice, and/or
c) pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the result dated 27.09.2013 and letter dated 03.03.2014 along with interview schedule of 69 candidates to be held on 24-28.03.2014 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case; and
d) pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, quashing the letters dated 06.03.2014 issued to applicant Nos. 1 to 4 (separately) [Annexure A-1], in the interest of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the present case; and
e) pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the official respondents to conduct interview as per the merit list/result dated 01.08.2013, and consider the applicants in terms of the recruitment rules of the posts of Education Officer/Assistant Director of Education, against the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes, with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice, and
f) pass an appropriate order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the official respondents to consider the applicants against the vacancies/posts reserved for SCs/STs, as per the O.M. No. 27/10/71-Estt. (SCT), dated the 05.09.1975; O.M. No. D-1458/81-Estt. (SCT); dated 21.05.1981 and O.M. No. 36012/6/88-Estt. (SCT), SRD, dated 06.09.1989, in the interest of justice, and/or
g) pass such order, further order(s) as this Hon'ble may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Interim Relief:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:-
a) grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the operation of the result dated 27.09.2013 and letter dated 03.03.2014 50 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases (Interview Schedule) [Annexure A-1] issued by the respondent No.1 -UPSC, during the pendency of the present original application and/or
b) grant ad interim ex-parte stay of the operation of the letter dated 06.03.2014 (Annexure A-1) issued by the respondent No.1-UPSC to the applicants, during the pendency of the present original application and/or
c) grant ad interim ex-parte direction to the respondent No.1 to conduct the interview of the applicants, pending final decision in the Original Application, in pursuance of the result dated 01.08.2013, during the pendency of the present original application and/or
d) pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case".
48. During arguments the Delhi High Court judgment in the case Munnu Lal Mishra vs. Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. judgment dated 18.05.2015 in WP (C) 2550/21014 & CM No.288/2014 had been relied upon in the context of this case.
49. However, the contents of the counter reply filed by the respondents on 27.10.2014 in this case also were almost similar, and need not be repeated here.
50. The contents of the rejoinder filed by the learned counsel for the applicant on 10.11.2014 were, however, slightly different than in other cases, and need to be mentioned here. The applicants had submitted that Respondent-UPSC has cited judgment in Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Tage Habung & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 737, but wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has in that case laid down the principle that once the minimum qualifying marks in the written examination are 51 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases fixed by the Public Service Commission concerned, thereafter that Commission has no power to tinker with that criteria. The applicants had thereafter reproduced Paragraphs 30 to 32 of that Apex Court judgment, which had taken notice of another judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 100, in which, while making recruitment for the posts of Gangmen, the Railways had fixed cut-off marks, separately for general category and reserved category candidates. However, the Railways did not later on lower the cut-off marks, even though some of the vacancies remained unfilled, as the requisite number of candidates were not available within the cut-off marks only because it was not considered to be conducive to the general merit of recruited candidates. The question therein was as to whether this decision not to lower the cut-off marks was arbitrary or not, in view of the fact that some of the vacancies had remained unfilled. The Hon'ble Apex Court had in that case of S. Vinod Kumar & Ors. (supra) held that if the cut-off marks were fixed on a rational basis, no exception can, therefore, be taken, but once it is held that they had the requisite jurisdiction to fix the cut-off marks, the necessary corollary thereof would be that they could not be directed to lower the same, and it was only for the employer, or the expert body, to determine the cut-off marks, depending upon the importance of the subject for the post in question, and it was held that it is permissible to fix different cut-off marks for different categories of candidates, which, in the power of judicial review, the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with.
52
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
51. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) also, it was held that fixation of qualifying marks as 33% in the written examination cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary action of the Commission. However, the applicants submitted that the above precedents of case law cited by the respondents are actually in favour of the argument which had been raised by the applicants, and which is completely against the action of the respondents in the present case.
52. The applicants also submitted that the Respondent-UPSC has also cited the case in B. Ramakichenin @ Balagandhi vs. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 362, but that case also supports only the contention of the applicants, since it was noticed in that judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court that once UPSC had published the method of short-listing, in order to restrict the number of candidates on the basis of either qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the Advertisement, or only on the basis of experience in the relevant field, it was held that since in that case a particular manner of short-listing had already been prescribed in Paragraph 3.1, it was not open to the UPSC to resort to any other method of short-listing, even if such other method can be said to be fair and objective.
53. It was, therefore, contended by the applicants that the Respondent- UPSC had erred in issuing the second result dated 27.09.2013, declaring 415 candidates as successful for the 20 posts of Education Officers/Assistant Director of Education in the Directorate of Education, 53 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases Govt. of NCT of Delhi. It was submitted that once the fist result had been declared, the Respondent-UPSC had no power to alter the conditions of examination, and issue a second or third result, whereby finally only 69 candidates were called for interviews, and the applicants, who had been declared successful in the second result list on the basis of their own merit, did not figure in the third list of candidates who were called for interviews.
54. It was submitted that though the Respondent-UPSC has cited another case in M.P. Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar (1994) 6 SCC 293, that was a case concerning recruitment to the posts of Presiding Officers of the Labour Court constituted under the provisions of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, in which there was no written test for selection, and, therefore, that precedent has no application to the facts of the present case, as in the instant case written test had been conducted.
55. The applicants had thereafter cited the case of Government of A.P. vs. P. Dilip Kumar 1993 (2) SCC 310, which related to a process of selection wherein certain candidates who were successful in the screening, and were in merit list were given advantage of their higher qualifications, but it was submitted that this precedent is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case, though in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that classification on the basis of higher educational qualification, with a view to achieving improvement in 54 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases administrative performance, is not abhorrent to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
56. It was, therefore, submitted that once the Respondent-UPSC had resorted to one of the methods of screening the candidates by holding a screening test, and had declared the result of that screening test, it had no further right to apply any other criteria also for curtailing that list for the purpose of calling candidates for interviews, and such new criteria, if any, would be contrary to the settled legal position, as per the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra).
57. It was submitted that when once by declaration of the second result, the Respondent-UPSC had increased the ratio of candidates qualified to the number of posts available from 1:4 (82 candidates) to 1:21 (415 candidates), and when once a short-listing criteria had also been adopted by the respondents, no fresh/new criteria could have been applied to decrease the number of candidates for calling for interviews, as the screening test had already been so adopted to decrease the number of eligible candidates. It was further pointed out that the Respondent-UPSC had tinkered with the criteria in such a manner that in the third list of 69 candidates called for the interviews, most of the candidates who were successful in the first list of 82 candidates had themselves been weeded out, which goes to show that the criteria and the method adopted by the respondents was perverse and illegal. 55
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
58. The applicants had thereafter cited portions from the DoP&T OMs dated 31.10.1969, 05.09.1975, 21.05.1981 and 06.09.1989 concerned with relaxing the qualifications regarding experience etc. in respect of SC and ST candidates, and submitted that these OMs were the subject matter of examination by the 9 Judges' Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of OBC candidates in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, which led to the 77th & 82nd Amendments of the Constitution in 1995 and 2000 respectively, and introduction of enabling provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution, for prescribing relaxation/ concession in matters of promotion of candidates belonging to SCs and STs. It was submitted that through the Hon'ble Apex Court's pronouncement of law in the case of Rohtash Bhankhar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Another (2014) 8 SCC 872, upholding the 82nd Amendment of the Constitution in the year 2000, and as per M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India 2006 (8) SCC 212, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be denied relaxed standards.
59. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared its earlier decision in Union of India vs. S. Vinod Kumar 1996 (6) SCC 580 as per incuriam through a three judges' Bench Order in Superintending Engineer, Public Health, UT Chandigarh vs. Kuldeep Singh 1997 (9) SCC 199, It was, therefore, submitted that the exercise as undertaken by the UPSC in cancelling the first declared result on 01.08.2013 of 82 candidates, and declaring the second result of 415 candidates on 27.09.2013, and thereafter curtailing the rights of the short-listed candidates by resorting to curtailing the list to only 69 56 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases candidates were perverse and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
60. It was further submitted that the view taken by the UPSC is more than perverse, as it goes against the essential qualifications prescribed for the posts concerned vide Gazette Notification dated 12.01.1978, in Column-7, and that the UPSC had not followed any legitimate procedure to screen the candidates. It was further submitted that a similar issue relating to the appointments for the posts of Principals was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 3894/2014 Santosh Pal Meena vs. UPSC, in which, on 23.07.2014, the Hon'ble High Court had been pleased to quash the recruitment process through Paragraphs 13,14,15 & 16 of that judgment.
61. It was, therefore, alleged that in view of above settled legal position, when UPSC had first declared the second result dated 27.09.2013, and then through an arbitrary exercise weeded out the meritorious candidates, and arrived at a third list of 69 candidates to be called for interviews, these actions were perverse and illegal.
62. In Para-wise remarks also, the applicants had more or less repeated their contentions as already recorded above. It was submitted that a three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court (2013) 4 SCC 540 considered the question of law as to what was the rule of the game, which cannot be changed after the game has either commenced, or has 57 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases been played. It was submitted that the exercise undertaken by the Respondent-UPSC does not pass the tests as per the judgment of the said case. It was submitted that though the applicants of this O.A. are members of the Scheduled Tribes, and are entitled for the benefits of relaxations as contemplated under Article 335 of the Constitution, they are not seeking any relaxation within the basic eligibility criteria, even though such relaxation is a right for consideration of their cases, and, therefore, they had assailed the actions of the Respondent-UPSC as perverse and illegal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in having eliminated their claims after first declaring them to be eligible for the posts as per the Advertisement. The applicants had, therefore, prayed once again that their OA be allowed.
Other OAs.
63. Since no new facts or pleadings have been brought on record in the pleadings of the remaining OAs, including the counter replies and rejoinders, for the sake of brevity, we are not repeating the contentions, which have already been noted by us in great detail above, which cover the contentions of both the sides as raised in these cases also. Order
64. Heard. These cases were argued at great length by the learned counsel for both the sides. The learned counsels for both the sides advanced the facts and arguments of their cases in detail more or less on the lines of their pleadings as already recorded above, and, therefore, such arguments need not be repeated here once again. 58
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
65. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of these cases. In the Advertisement for the 20 posts of Education Officers/Assistant Directors of Education, as put out in the year 2012, as regards the Scheme of the written test, it had been prescribed very clearly that the same would be an objective type test, with multiple choice answers, carrying maximum marks of 100, and for every wrong answers one-third (0.33%) of the marks assigned already to the applicant would be deduced, but if no answer is marked for a question, there would be no penalty for that question. It is also not in question that the reservation of posts for SC/ST /OBC and PH category candidates had been prescribed by keeping one post reserved for SCs, two posts reserved for STs, and seven posts reserved for OBCs, with a rider that blind or low vision/orthopedically handicapped and locomotor disability candidates would also be considered. The essential educational qualifications mentioned at least second class Masters' degree of a recognized University or equivalent in Humanities or in Science, and Degree/Diploma in Teaching Education from a recognized University/Institution. The experience as prescribed in the Advertisement dated 23-29 January, 2010, in the Employment News was ten years of experience in teaching and/or educational Administration, including at least three years in a responsible administrative capacity. Among desirable qualifications were experience as an Inspecting Officer in the field of education, and knowledge of Hindi.
59
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
66. The Respondent-UPSC had uploaded the list of 82 provisionally short-listed candidates for interviews on 01.08.2013. However, when during an in-house scrutiny of the documents submitted by those 82 candidates, it was found that very few of them were actually eligible for being called for interviews, the Respondent-UPSC decided to publish an expanded list of 415 candidates to have been short-listed, including the earlier 82 candidates. It has been submitted that thereafter subject experts carefully scrutinized the documents and dossiers of these 415 candidates as per the Recruitment Rules, the Advertisement, the Corrigendum, and the duties and responsibilities of the posts in question, along with other relevant material, and those experts finally found only 69 candidates to be eligible in all respects to be called for the interviews. It has been submitted that the remaining candidates out of 415 either did not meet the Essential Educational Qualifications, or did not possess the Essential Administrative Experience, or the combination of Essential Educational Qualifications and Administrative Experience.
67. It was submitted by the respondents that, on this account accordingly, only those 69 candidates out of 415 were intimated about the rejection of their application, well before the interviews. As has already been mentioned while recording the pleadings, the UPSC had sought shelter behind eight judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court which support their authority to prescribe a method for short-listing, and to determine the suitability of candidates in order to be able to select the most deserving candidates from the pool of eligible candidates. 60
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
68. Respondents No. 2 & 3 had adopted the reply of Respondent No.1- UPSC, and did not advance any detailed separate arguments in these cases, all of which were centred regarding actions taken by the UPSC.
69. Respondents had also submitted a set of proforma concerning the consideration of the cases of these applicants, showing the grounds or rejection such as Administrative Experience short by couple of months in a few cases, no Administrative Experience in a few cases, no Requisite Administrative Experience in a few cases, not having 2nd class in Humanities/Science at PG level in a few cases, along with no requisite experience in some cases. But, in their reply rejoinders and oral arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants did not specifically challenge any of these individual Assessment Sheets as had been prepared by the Experts, and produced by the Respondent-UPSC, and they had only continued to resort to generalities in order to put forward the case on which they relied upon. Therefore, the grounds for rejection of the cases of the applicants have gone un-rebutted.
70. As already mentioned while discussing the facts, learned counsel for the applicants had relied upon a number of judgments as follows:-
"i) Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Tage Habung & Ors. (supra);
ii) B. Ramakichenin Balagandhi vs. Union of India & Ors.
(supra);
iii) M.P. Public Service Commission vs. Navnit Kumar Potdar (supra);61
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
iv) Govt. of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Dilip Kumar (supra);
v) Dr. Basavaiha vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors. (supra);
vi) Dalpat Ahasaheb Solunke and Ors. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors. (supra);
vii) Ramanand Pratap Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
(supra);
viii) M.V. Thimmaiah vs. UPSC & Ors. (supra);
ix) Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K. Santhosh & Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 106;
x) UPSC vs. Gyan Prakash Srivastava (2012) 1 SCC 537".
71. But, we have examined the law as laid down in these cases in the context of the events as recorded from the point of view of the requirement of the UPSC to fill up the 20 posts of Education Officers/Assistant Directors of Education. When while applying the normal 1:4 criteria for preparing the cut-off list, the Respondent-UPSC had short-listed only 82 candidates for the 20 posts, on scrutiny of their documents, it was found that most of them who had qualified in the screening written test, did not attain the required Administrative Experience as prescribed in the Advertisement.
72. At this stage, the UPSC could not have changed the Rules of the game, and relaxed the essential or desirable qualifications, or requirements of Administrative Experience. Therefore, they decided to enlarge the zone of consideration and by reducing the cut off by a couple of marks only, as has been stated by them, they found that 415 candidates came to be included within the zone of consideration. The 62 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases Rules of the game had not been changed in this process, and only the cut-off marks, which had not been prescribed in the Advertisement, had been lowered by a notch, which was totally permissible to be done by the UPSC as per law as laid down in all the cited cases.
73. The problem now was of plenty. In place of 1:4, they had at their hands almost 21 candidates short-listed for each of the 20 posts. However, they then undertook a rigorous process of the examination of the documents of all the 415 candidates with the help of experts, which was also permissible to be done by them as per the law as laid down, and in this process weeded out most, and ultimately could retain only 69 persons to be fully eligible as per the essential and desirable qualifications as prescribed in the Advertisement, which number of 69 was more than 1:3, though less than 1:4, in so far as the 20 posts were concerned, and was thus permissible.
74. It is clear that such examination of the eligibility of all the 415 candidates coming under the enlarged zone of consideration was very much permissible under law. Some of the applicants before us are aggrieved that reservations were not followed in such weeding out of 346 candidates, and the others have taken different grounds. However, it is clear that none of the applicants could rebut or assail the individual applicant-wise Assessment Sheets produced in the Court during the hearing held on 14.10.2015 by the learned counsel for UPSC, in respect of any of the applicants.
63
OA No-957/2014 with connected cases
75. It is also seen that the applicants in these cases constitute a minority among the 346 candidates who were so eliminated by the Experts engaged by the UPSC for the purpose of scrutiny of documents and verification of the candidature of all the candidates. The others have not approached this Tribunal, while the grounds to disqualify them from being called for the interviews must have been the same.
76. Therefore, when once the Respondent-UPSC has neither changed the Rules of the game after they has started the process of selection, nor introduced any new essential or desirable qualification, but had only assessed the cases of all the 415 candidates which had got included in the enlarged zone of consideration by reducing the cut-off marks, and had then found 346 candidates to be disqualified from even being called for the interviews for one reason or the other, which reasons have gone un-rebutted, it does not lie for this Tribunal to try to put ourselves in the shoes of either the UPSC appointed Experts, to scrutinise the cases of each of those 415 applications, or put ourselves in the shoes of the Respondent-UPSC, which had recognized the full eligibility of 69 of those 415 candidates to appear at the interviews, and to compete for the 20 posts.
77. The other respondents in the user-department may have had no role to play other than assisting UPSC in examination of the certificates. Even if they had issued some experience certificates in the cases of a few applicants, which did not fall within the ambit of the educational 64 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases qualifications and experience requirements as prescribed in the Advertisement, and the Experts appointed by the UPSC chose or decided not to go along with such experience certificates as procured by the applicants concerned, the process of recruitment conducted by the Respondent-UPSC cannot be stated to have been vitiated on this account also.
78. Therefore, in the final analysis, we find that none of the case laws, as cited by the applicants, can be squarely made applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Respondent-UPSC had neither introduced any new essential qualifications, nor introduced any new desirable qualifications, nor introduced any new criteria for weeding out those who did not fulfil the essential and desirable qualifications, or educational qualifications and administrative experience. In fact, when once the 82 candidates first declared selected in the Result dated 01.08.2013 were found to be ineligible on one count or the other, and the ratio/proportion of candidates to be interviewed for the 20 posts was likely to fall even below 1:3, which is the minimum prescribed criteria for such cases, and has also been laid down in numerous judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was incumbent upon the Respondent-UPSC to reduce the cut- off to enlarge the zone of consideration, whereby they ended up declaring a revised Result dated 27.09.2013, this time consisting of 415 candidates, because many candidates appeared at the same marks, we cannot find fault with the procedure or process adopted by the respondent UPSC to revise the first result. We also do not find any fault 65 OA No-957/2014 with connected cases with the process of scrutiny undertaken thereafter through the appointment of Experts.
79. On the whole, we do not find that the Respondent-UPSC has stepped beyond the ambit of the Advertisement which had been put out for undertaking recruitments to the 20 posts concerned, and which, as per the law laid down in this regard, is binding upon parties of both the sides, the candidates taking the examination as per the Advertisement, as well as the UPSC, which had published the Advertisement calling for applications. We also do not find that the relaxations and other concessions as admissible to the SC/ST candidates have been overlooked, or denied to them in any manner by the respondents while preparing the final list through the Experts.
80. Therefore, all the 28 OAs are found to be without any merit, and are, therefore, rejected, but there shall be no order as to costs.
81. Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) cc.