Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Saad Ahmed vs Gnctd on 9 May, 2025
Item No. 05/C-4 1 OA No. 2545/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2545/2023
Reserved on: 05.04.2025
Pronounced on: 09.05.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. Saad Ahmed
S/o Mr. Rafi Ahmed
R/o 1423, Chhatta Nawab Sahab,
Farash Khana, Delhi-110006
Aged about 36 years
Group 'A'
(Candidate to the post of Assistant Professor
(Unani) Munafe-Ul-Aza) ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
I. P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Directorate of Ayush
Through its Director
(GNCT of Delhi)
Ayurvedic & Unani Tibbia College Campus,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005
3. Department of Health & Family Welfare
Through its Secretary
(GNCT of Delhi)
Delhi Sachivalaya, Players Building,
I. P. Estate, New Delhi
4. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069
Item No. 05/C-4 2 OA No. 2545/2023
5. The Lieutenant Governor,
GNCT of Delhi
Rajniwas, Rajpur Road,
Delhi-110052
6. Mr. Mohd. Anus Ansari
(Roll No. 45)
S/o not known
R/o not known
(Service of respondent No. 6 be effected though respondent
No. 4)
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. R V Sinha with Ms Shriya Sharma for R-4,
Mr. A S Singh, Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Dhurendra Singh for Mr.
Girish C Jha for R- 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. Juned Salman for R-6)
Item No. 05/C-4 3 OA No. 2545/2023
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present O.A., filed u/s 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned decision of the Govt./respondents placed at Annexure A/1 and A/2 in selecting ineligible respondent No. 6 to the post of Assistant Professor (Unani) „Munafe-Ul-Aza‟ instead of applicant and
(b) direct the respondents to further consider, recommend and appoint the applicant to the post of Assistant Professor (Unani) „Munafe-Ul-Aza‟ as he is fully eligible and highest scorer amongst the eligible candidates in the instant selection process.
(c) grant all consequential benefits
(d) award costs of the proceedings; and
(e) pass any order/relief/direction (s) as this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant submits that in response to advertisement no. 4/22 issued by respondents for filling up various posts including 03 posts (01 ST, 01 OBC and 01 UR) of Assistant Professor (Unani) in the specialty of 'Munafe-Ul-Aza', he being fully eligible, applied for the same. The applicant belongs to OBC category. Essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement read as follows:-
"Essential Qualifications: Educational (i) Degree in Unani Medicine from a University established by Law or Statutory Board/Faculty/Examining Body of Indian Medicine or equivalent as recognized under Indian Medicine Central Council Item No. 05/C-4 4 OA No. 2545/2023 Act, 1970 (ii) A Post Graduate Degree in the subject/specialty concerned included in the scheduled of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970."
3. The applicant submits that he possesses the degree of Bachelor of Unani Medicine & Surgery from Delhi University (2009) and Post Graduate qualification known as 'Mahir-E- Tibb' M. D. (Unani) in the specialty "Munafe-Ul-Aza' from Delhi University (year 2016).
4. The applicant further submits that the UPSC resorted to short listing criteria EQ-A(i)+EQ-A(ii) and he was shortlisted at roll No. 49. The interviews of shortlisted candidates were conducted on 28.07.2023 and he participated therein.
5. The result of selection process announced on 03.08.2023 (Annexure-A/1) and the same is impugned to the extent it relates to selection of Mohd. Anus Ansari, roll No. 45 (respondent No. 6 herein) against the sole OBC vacancy and the applicant has not been recommended as per his individual result dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure A/2). It is submitted that selection of respondent No. 6 instead of applicant is illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Recruitment Rules and hence liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that respondent No. 6 does not possess the essential qualification (ii) i.e. Post Graduate in the subject/speciality concerned i.e. 'Munafe-Ul-Aza'. He is post graduate in the speciality of 'Kulliyate Tib'. The speciality Item No. 05/C-4 5 OA No. 2545/2023 'Kulliyate Tib' is an allied subject and not the concerned speciality/subject.
6. It is relevant to mention that not only the applicant, but also Mr. Nazim Saifi, the third OBC candidate who participated in the selection process (his roll No. being 47) are post graduate in the subject concerned i.e. 'Munafe-Ul- Aza'. Said third candidate too was present and participated in the selection process and has obtained 50 marks. It is further relevant to note that as per the 'The Regulations', the provision of allied subjects was allowed for five years from the date of its notification. The regulations were notified in the Gazette of India on 07.11.2016 and hence, the provision of allowing allied subjects has lapsed on 06.11.2021 and thus not applicable to the instant selection process notified in the year 2022.
7. It is thus submitted that respondent No. 6 could not be considered at all in the selection process and respondents' action in simultaneously considering him and selecting him is illegal and unconstitutional.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondents, the applicant submitted his representation to authorities on 12.08.2023 (Annexure A/9). However, the respondents are not considering the same, and are in an active process of appointing respondent No. 6 to the detriment and prejudice Item No. 05/C-4 6 OA No. 2545/2023 of the applicant whereas applicant is the higher scorer amongst those candidates who possess the qualification in the subject concerned and fully eligible as per the Recruitment Regulations.
9. The applicant submits the present OA deserves to be allowed in terms of following grounds:-
a) CCIM regulations duly notified in the Gazette of India mandate that it is only in the absence of candidate of post graduate qualification in the concerned subject/speciality that a candidate of post graduation qualification in the allied subject can be considered eligible. In the present case, not only the applicant but another candidate namely Nazim Saifi had presented their candidatures and duly participated in the selection process.
b) There is no room for consideration of any candidate who does not possess the qualification in concerned subject and instead possesses the qualification in allied subject.
c) Even the provision for allowing candidate possessing post graduation qualification in allied subject in the absence of candidate possessing post graduation qualification in concerned subject has lapsed after 05 years from the date of CCIM notification.
Item No. 05/C-4 7 OA No. 2545/2023
d) Central Council of Indian Medicine (now known as National Commission For Indian System of Medicine;
since June, 2021) is a statutory body constituted under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the regulations issued by it are statutory and binding, once notified in official gazette. The instant recruitment is governed by the regulations framed by CCIM and notified in Gazette of India dated 07.11.2016.
e) Even as per note contained in the advertisement, issued by UPSC, it is only in case of non-availability of post graduate degree holder teacher in required speciality, a candidate in allied discipline could be considered. Once candidates including the applicant possessing post graduate qualification in the concerned speciality are available, question of considering and selecting other candidate of the allied discipline does not arise. The expressions 'absence'/'non-availability' are absolute and do not admit of adequacy of candidates which otherwise is an indefinite term.
f) The impugned action of the respondents is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and is an arbitrary and malafide act of the respondents.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of the present OA.
Item No. 05/C-4 8 OA No. 2545/2023 SUBMISSION MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS:
11. The respondent no. 4 has filed counter reply on 25.09.2023, wherein, it is stated that in the discharge of its Constitutional obligations, the Commission is vested with the power to devise their autonomous modes of functioning and procedures objectively in just and equitable manner in which reasonable classification of various candidates, on the basis of their qualifications and experience is done. These powers of the Commission for reasonable limit regarding the number of candidates to be shortlisted for the interview have been upheld by various judicial authorities including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Commission sets in motion the process of recruitment by advertising the posts strictly in conformity with the notified recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and inviting applications. When the number of eligible applicants is substantially more than the number of posts, the Commission restricts the number of candidates to be called for interview, on the basis of a reasonable classification, based on consciously devised objective of short-listing criteria. The respondents submit that in discharge of the Constitutional obligations of making recruitment to all Civil Services and posts under the Government of India, the Commission acts strictly in terms of the Recruitment Rules and the terms of the advertisement. It is settled proposition of law that in Item No. 05/C-4 9 OA No. 2545/2023 exercise of the power of judicial review, the Courts review not the decision but the decision making process. Only if the decision making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, bias or mala fides, the Courts would interfere in the decision making process. It may be worthwhile to submit here that the Commission with its vast experience and expertise, has evolved foolproof systems and procedures in carrying out the functions entrusted under the Constitution in a transparent, objective, fair and just manner. These systems and procedures have been upheld by Hon'ble Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court.
12. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondent no. 4, the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 27.09.2023 wherein he submits that it is pertinent to point out that respondent UPSC has admitted that respondent No. 6 does not possess the mandatory PG qualification in the main subject. UPSC has further admitted that candidates having qualification in the main subject including the applicant have participated in the selection process. It is thus admitted by UPSC that respondent No. 6 has been wrongly and illegally considered contrary to the rules and advertisement. The expression "non-availability' denotes absolute unavailability and cannot be read to mean non-adequate or inadequate' which otherwise too is an indefinite term having no benchmarks for determination of adequacy or otherwise.
Item No. 05/C-4 10 OA No. 2545/2023 Once the Rules specifically provide that consideration of candidate with allied subject can only be done when candidate with main subject is not available, the consideration of respondent No. 6 is illegal and unconstitutional and so is his selection.
13. The respondents nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 have filed counter reply on 04.10.2023 wherein they have submitted that the recommended candidate possesses the essential Post Graduate Qualification MD (Unani) in Kulliyate Tib which is allied to the subject of Munafe-Ul Aza. It is further submitted that NCIM (formerly CCIM) in its latest regulation notified on 28.02.2022 has given the provision that allied subjects may be allowed for five years from the date of commencement of these regulations i.e. 28.02.2022 (Annexure-R/1).
14. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents nos. 1, 2, 3, & 5, the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 29.12.2023 wherein it is stated that the respondents acknowledge the fact that respondent No. 6 possesses the P.G. qualifications MD (Unani) in 'Kulliyate Tib' which is allied to the main subject of 'Munafe-Ul-Aza' It is submitted that respondents' reliance on regulations dated 28.02.2022 do not cover the illegality inasmuch as, as per these regulations, the subject 'Kulliyate Tib' remains allied to the main subject and is to be considered only in the absence of candidate possessing qualification in main subject i.e. Munafe-Ul-Aza.
Item No. 05/C-4 11 OA No. 2545/2023
15. The respondent no. 6 has filed counter reply on 30.11.2023 wherein it is stated that the alleged post adheres to legal, impartial, and unbiased procedures, following the statutory guidelines of the UPSC. Consequently, the present original application appears to be aimed at harming the reputation of the answering respondent and other respondents merely for the satisfaction of the applicant. It is further stated that not just UPSC only but Aligarh Muslim University and UPPSC have made similar selections for such posts based on student candidature, regardless of the subject or speciality. This practice is not illegal, as it aligns with the selections made by apex prestigious Govt. selection authorities. Respondent no. 6 contends that UPSC clearly mentioned in the said advertisement under a note that, "The Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified." Therefore, based on the relaxation provided by UPSC in the advertisement for the said post, UPSC retains the right to select answering respondent based on his candidature. In the scrutiny list of the alleged post has Modalities to shortlist the candidates wherein modality no. 04 clearly states that:-
"(4) For specialty of Unani, Munafe-Ul-Aza, the Kulliyate Tib is an allied specialty. The allied specialty of Kulliyate Tib has been taken as PG Degree in case of OBC (Delhi) candidates.
However, in case of UR & OBC (outside Delhi), only main specialty i.e. Munafe-Ul-Aza has been considered as there are sufficient number of candidates are available." There was no Item No. 05/C-4 12 OA No. 2545/2023 concealment and therefore, there were no illegality in the selection process.
15.1 That scrutiny list of the alleged post has clearly mentioned the Modality regarding the Kulliyate Tib as an allied specialty, which has been considered as PG Degree in case of OBC (Delhi) candidates. The applicant was fully aware of these modalities and short listing criteria since the release of the scrutiny list. However, no objections were raised at that time, despite UPSC providing ample time before the interview. The learned panel recommended the answering respondent with PG in allied subject, as the other applicants were deemed not competent and suitable. As UPSC is an autonomous body and also it is mentioned in the advertisement that "The Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified. Respondent no. 6 further contends that the applicant failed to approach the Tribunal with clean hands and concealed crucial facts by not disclosing the provision related to the allied subject. The applicant drew the court's attention to an old gazette notification of the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), stating that the provision of the allied subject had lapsed on 06.11.2021, and was not applicable to the alleged selection. However, it should be noted that the new gazette notification of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM), Item No. 05/C-4 13 OA No. 2545/2023 formerly CCIM, dated 28.02.2022, clearly mentioned in Table-19 (Provision of allied subject) that "The provision of allied subjects may be allowed for five years from the date of commencement of these regulations".
16. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondent no. 6, the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 02.01.2024 wherein it is denied that AMU or UPPSC has committed said wrongful acts. Even otherwise, a wrong act cannot be perpetuated and if some University is committing a wrong, the answering respondent cannot draw parity and seek furtherance or repetition of wrong. The alleged practice cannot prevail and override the legislation. It is further stated that the contents of paras 6-9 of the counter affidavit are wrong. UPSC has neither accorded any relaxation as alleged, nor UPSC could have relaxed any essential qualification. As per RRs, the candidate with allied qualifications could only be considered in the absence of candidates possessing main qualifications. Therefore, where there was no candidate with main subject qualification, UPSC considered candidate with allied subject like in ST category. However, in the category of applicant, not only he but also one more candidate possessing qualification in main subject are available and hence selection of respondent No. 6 is unlawful. The action of UPSC in selecting respondent No. 6 is illegal and contrary to rules and regulations and there cannot be any estoppel against law Item No. 05/C-4 14 OA No. 2545/2023 especially when the applicant has challenged the selection of respondent No. 6 at the first available opportunity. The respondent No. 6 can suit himself by treating him the most eligible and best suitable, however, cannot have a march in appointment, contrary to law. It is denied that applicant did not come with clean hands or concealed or not disclosed material facts, as alleged. Not only that the advertisement was issued prior to notification of 2022 regulations, it is submitted that 2022 regulations are no different on the relevant aspect and merely extend the validity of consideration of allied subject for a period of five more years, in the absence of candidate having main subject i.e. Munafe-Ul-Aza. CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENTS
17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 places reliance on the order/judgments namely; (i) In W.P. (C) No. 3230 of 2020 titled Kirti Arora Vs. Reserve Bank of India, reported as 2020 LAWPACK (Del) 79772, decided on 16.09.2020; (ii) In Civil Appeal No. 9092 of 2012 titled Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported as (2017) 4 SCC 357, decided on 21.10.2016; (iii) In Civil Appeal No. 2744 of 1997 titled Durga Devi & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., reported as (1997) 4 SCC 575, decided on 11.07.1997; (iv) In Civil Appeal Nos. 3507-10 of 1989 titled Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. Vs. Dr. B. S. Mahajan & Ors., reported as (1990) 1 SCC 305, decided on Item No. 05/C-4 15 OA No. 2545/2023 06.12.1989; (v) In Civil Appeal Nos. 2164-2172 of 2023 titled Tejbir Singh Sodhi Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, decided on 28.03.2023; and (vi) In Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023 titled Ankita Thakur and Others Vs. H.P. Staff Selection Commission, decided on 09.11.2023.
18. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions made by them.
ANALYSIS
19. The applicant submits that he possesses the degree of Bachelor of Unani Medicine & Surgery from Delhi University (2009) and Post Graduate qualification known as 'Mahire-E- Tibb' M.D. (Unani) in the speciality 'Munafe-Ul-Aza' from Delhi University in the year 2016. The contention of the applicant is that despite fulfilling the required qualification, he has not been appointed by the respondents.
20. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 (UPSC) has relied upon the following judgments:-
20.1 Judgment dated 16.09.2020 of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 3230 of 2020 in the matter of Kirti Arora Vs Reserve Bank of India, reported as 2020 LAWPACK (Del) 79772; wherein the Court in paras nos. 29-33 and 37-38 has held as under:-
"29. The next issue that arises before the Court is whether the Petitioner possesses the requisite Essential Educational Item No. 05/C-4 16 OA No. 2545/2023 Qualification for the post of Officer in Grade 'B' (DR) - DSIM under the Advertisement. The neat legal nodus that arises is whether it is open to the Court to enter into the arena of deciding whether the Master's Degree in Operational Research is equivalent to the Degree in Applied Statistics and Informatics.
30. The law on judicial review of determination of eligibility criteria and equivalence of Degrees is no longer res integra. In so far as fixing of the eligibility criteria is concerned, it is in the realm of a policy decision and is in the exclusive domain of the employer, who is best suited to decide what criteria have to be prescribed, depending on the Rules applicable to the post concerned, nature of the post and the work required to be executed by the employee. It is not for the Court to lay down eligibility conditions, much less to decide whether the eligibility conditions are right or wrong or even interpret the essential or the desirable qualifications laid down in the Advertisement. Likewise, the question of equivalence, as held by the Supreme Court in several decisions, is outside the domain of judicial review. Once the advertisement prescribes a particular eligibility condition and there is no ambiguity in the language, it is not for the Court to sit in judgement over the same. Even in a case where there is an ambiguity or the criteria stipulated appears to be contrary to the Recruitment Rules or a Statute, the matter can only be remanded back to the employer for a re- examination.
31. In 2002, Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252 observed as under :- "13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority."
32. A Division Bench of this Court in MCD vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., 2002 SCC OnLine Del 1832 held as under :-
"24. In our opinion, it is for the authorities concerned and not the Court to decide whether there is equivalence or not. It is not proper for the Court to encroach into the executive domain. The judiciary must exercise restraint in this connection. For the reasons given above, this appeal and other connected appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside, the writ, petitions are dismissed."
33. In a recent judgement in 2020 titled Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86, the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of equivalence between the Course on Computer Concept (CCC) Certificate and Computer Qualification Certificate observed as follows :-
Item No. 05/C-4 17 OA No. 2545/2023 "59. The equivalence of qualification as claimed by a candidate is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer. It is the recruiting agency which has to be satisfied as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of qualification is fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for the job. It is the recruiting agency who is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate as to whether a candidate is eligible and entitled to participate in the selection. More so when the advertisement clearly contemplates that certificate concerning the qualification shall be scrutinised, it was the duty and obligation of the recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or self-declaration by a candidate that his computer qualification is equivalent to CCC has neither been envisaged in the advertisement nor can be said to be fulfilling the eligibility condition."
*** *** ***
37. Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 652, has clearly observed as under :
"9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same."
38. The binding dicta of the Supreme Court thus is that questions of equivalence of degrees/educational qualifications fall outside the domain of judicial review. There is also merit in the contention of the Respondent that it was clearly mentioned in the Advertisement that before applying candidates should ensure that they fulfill the eligibility criteria of the advertised posts. Eligibility was to be determined at the interview stage and candidates were duly informed that if at that stage it was found that a candidate does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for the Item No. 05/C-4 18 OA No. 2545/2023 post, his/her candidature would be cancelled and he/she would not be allowed to appear for the interview."
20.2 Judgment dated 21.10.2016 of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9092 of 2012 in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported as (2017) 4 SCC 357, the Court recorded the following order:-
"11. The basic issue that was addressed by the Division Bench was that the appellants having participated in the fresh round of selection could not be permitted to assail the process once they were declared unsuccessful. On this aspect, a brief recapitulation of the facts would be in order. In the original process of selection, following the issuance of General order No. 204 of 2003 by the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur on 2 December 2003, a written examination was held on 20 April 2004 consisting of eighty five marks followed by an interview on 7 July 2004 consisting of fifteen marks. The High Court declined to approve of the selection list and issued through its Registrar (Administration), a communication dated 19 August 2004 requiring the holding of a fresh written examination carrying ninety marks in which the qualifying marks would be regarded as forty five in terms of its General letter No.1 of 1995. Pursuant thereto, a circular was issued in the form of a new General order bearing No. 171 of 2004 on 8 October 2004 which stipulated that in terms of the directions issued by the High Court on 19 August 2004, a fresh written examination would be held carrying ninety marks (with qualifying marks as forty five) followed by an interview of ten marks. Candidates who had applied earlier were not required to apply afresh.
12. The appellants participated in the fresh process of selection. If the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.
13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently Item No. 05/C-4 19 OA No. 2545/2023 turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar, this Court held that:
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same... (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil6 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission7)."
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah (supra) where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar8, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the 5 (2007) 8 SCC 100 6 (1991) 3 SCC 368 7 (2006) 12 SCC 724 8 (2010) 12 SCC 576 merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J. and K., Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (supra)."
16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission9, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi10, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any 9 (2011) 1 SCC 150 10 (2013) 11 SCC 309 objection to the selection Item No. 05/C-4 20 OA No. 2545/2023 process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that : "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes partin the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
18. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur11, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey12, this Court held that :
"17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam.
19. In the present case, regard must be had to the fact that the appellants were clearly on notice, when the fresh selection process took place that written examination would carry ninety marks and the interview, ten marks. The appellants participated in the selection process. Moreover, two other considerations weigh in balance. The High Court noted in the impugned judgment that the interpretation of Rule 6 was not free from vagueness. There was in other words no glaring or patent illegality in the process adopted by the High Court. There was an element of vagueness about whether Rule 6 which dealt with promotion merely incorporated the requirement of an examination provided in Rule 5 for direct recruitment to Class III posts or whether the marks and qualifying marks were also incorporated. Moreover, no prejudice was established to have been caused to the appellants by the 90:10 allocation." 20.3 Judgment dated 11.04.1997 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2744 of 1997 in the matter of Item No. 05/C-4 21 OA No. 2545/2023 Durga Devi & Anr. Vs State of H.P. & Ors, reported as (1997) 4 SCC 575, the Court in paras 3 & 4 has held as under:
"3. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke etc. etc. Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan etc. etc. (AIR 1990 SC 434) while dealing with somewhat an identical question, this Court opined:
"It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise . The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due Compliance with the relevant status. The committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it, In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
4. In the instant case, as would be seen from the perusal of the impugned order, the selection of the appellants has been quashed by the Tribunal by itself scrutinising the comparative merits of the candidates and fitness for the post as if the Tribunal was Sitting as an appellate authority over the selection Committee. The selection of the candidates was not quashed on any other ground. The Tribunal fell in error in arrogating to itself the power to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and consider the fitness and suitability for appointment. That was the function of the selection committee. The observation of this Court in Dalapt Abasaheb Solunke's case (supra) are squarely attracted to the facts of the present case. The order of the Tribunal Under the circumstances cannot be sustained. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 10th December , 1992 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal on other points in accordance with the law after hearing the parties.
20.4 Judgment dated 06.12.1989 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3507-10 of 1989 in the matter of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. Vs Dr. B. S. Mahajan & Ors., reported as (1990) 1 SCC 305, the Court in para no. 12 has held as under:-
Item No. 05/C-4 22 OA No. 2545/2023 "12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the Court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.
20.5 Judgment dated 28.03.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2164- 2172 of 2023 (SLP (c) No. 20781-20789 of 2021) in the matter of Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., reported as (1990) 1 SCC 305, wherein the Court in paras no. 65-66 & 68-70 has held as under:-
"65. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the Item No. 05/C-4 23 OA No. 2545/2023 decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law:
i) In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 434, this Court clarified the scope of judicial review of a selection process, in the following words:
"9...It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether the candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc....."
ii) In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. vs. Dr. Anita Puri, (1996) 6 SCC 282, this Court observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection process and the grounds on which the results thereof may be interfered with:
"9. ... It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation......."
iii) This position was reiterated by this Court in M. V. Thimmaiah vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2008) 2 SCC 119, in the following words:
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee Item No. 05/C-4 24 OA No. 2545/2023 like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion...
xxx xxx xxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions....."
iv) Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 117, was a case where an appeal was filed before this Court challenging the selection of members to the Delhi Stock Exchange on the ground that the Selection Committee formed for the aforesaid purpose, arbitrarily favoured some candidates and was thus, against Article 14. This Court rejected the allegation of favouritism and bias by holding as under:
"5. ...the selection of members by the Expert Committee had to be done on the basis of an objective criteria taking into consideration experience, professional qualifications and similar related factors. In the present cases, we find that certain percentage of marks were allocated for each of these factors, namely, educational qualifications, experience, financial background and knowledge of the relevant laws and procedures pertaining to public issues etc. Of the total marks allocated only 20 per cent were reserved for interviews. Therefore, the process of selection by the Expert Committee was not left entirely to the sweet- will of the members of the Committee. The area of play was limited to 20 per cent and having regard to the fact that the members of the Expert Committee comprised of two members nominated by the Central Government it is difficult to accept the contention that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion......"
Item No. 05/C-4 25 OA No. 2545/2023
66. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.
xxx xxx xxx
68. The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law:
i) In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.
ii) In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998.
After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under:
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
Item No. 05/C-4 26 OA No. 2545/2023
iii) Similarly, in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, a process was initiated for promotion to Class-III posts from amongst Class-IV employees of a civil court. In the said case, the selection was to be made on the basis of a written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% marks were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27 (twenty-seven) candidates who appeared in the written examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified.
They were interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court declined to approve the Select List on the ground that the ratio of full marks for the written examination and the interview ought to have been 90:10 and 45 ought to be the qualifying marks in the written examination. A fresh process followed comprising of a written examination (full marks - 90 and qualifying marks - 45) and an interview (carrying 10 marks). On the basis of the performance of the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons were appointed on Class-III posts. It was thereafter that the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the High Court on the administrative side declining to approve the initial Select List. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks. This Court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants were clearly put on notice when the fresh selection process took place that the written examination would carry 90 marks and the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that: "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Item No. 05/C-4 27 OA No. 2545/2023 Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724)".
69. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.
70. This Court in Sadananda Halo has noted that the only exception to the rule of waiver is the existence of mala fides on the part of the Selection Board. In the present case, we are unable to find any mala fide or arbitrariness in the selection process and therefore the said exception cannot be invoked."
20.6 Judgment dated 09.11.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023 (SLP (c) No. 730 of 2022) in the matter of Anketa Thakur and Ors. Vs. HP State commission and Ors., wherein the Court in paras nos. 42-46 has held as under:-
"42. It is well settled that eligibility criteria / conditions, unless provided otherwise in the extant rules or the advertisement, must be fulfilled by the candidate by the last date for receipt of applications specified in the advertisement [See: Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra)].
43. In Bedanga Talukdar (supra), this Court observed:
"29. ............... In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process Item No. 05/C-4 28 OA No. 2545/2023 has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant statutory rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised, has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
30. A perusal of the advertisement in this case will clearly show that there was no power of relaxation. In our opinion, the High Court committed an error in directing that the condition with regard to the submission of the disability certificate either along with the application form or before appearing in the preliminary examination could be relaxed in the case of Respondent 1.
Such a course would not be permissible as it would violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. .......... It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. .............." (Emphasis supplied)
44. The above decision has been followed in Sanjay K. Dixit (supra). Thus, the law is settled that if the extant Rules provide for the power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could be exercised only if such power is reserved in the advertisement. And when this power is exercised, there must be wide publicity of its exercise so that persons who are likely to benefit by exercise of such power may get opportunity to apply and compete.
45. In the instant case, it is not shown that the advertisement reserved the power to relax the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the advertisement at any later stage. Rather, the advertisement is specific that Item No. 05/C-4 29 OA No. 2545/2023 eligibility criteria must be fulfilled by an aspiring candidate by the last date fixed for receipt of the application. It is not demonstrated that after the decision to relax the eligibility criteria was taken, the same was widely publicized, and the last date to apply under the advertisement was extended to enable persons benefited by such relaxation to apply and compete. In these circumstances, in our view, the power to relax the eligibility criteria, even if it existed, was not exercised in consonance with the settled legal principles and it violated the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Issue No.(i) is decided in the terms above.
46. Issue Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv):
47. As issue nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) are interrelated we propose to deal with them simultaneously. First, we shall consider whether there is any ambiguity in the essential eligibility qualifications specified in the 2014 Rules.
48. As per Rule 7 of the 2014 Rules, "one year diploma in Computer Science / Computer Application / Information Technology from a recognized University / Institution"
was one of the essential qualifications which an aspiring candidate was required to possess to be eligible for the post. According to the High Court, it was ambiguous because "recognized Institution" was not defined. Therefore, to provide clarity as to what was a recognized Institution, under orders of the Tribunal, the relaxation / clarification order dated 21.08.2017 was issued. According to the appellants, this exercise was not acceptable because there existed a statutory regime in the 2010 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder empowering a Takniki Board to accord recognition / affiliation to institutes awarding diploma / certificate on successful completion of such courses. It is their case that the State did not place the statutory regime before the High Court and, therefore, the High Court overlooked the same while accepting the plea of ambiguity in the 2014 Rules."
21. The respondents have relied upon the judgment in the case of Kirti Arora (supra). We have perused the same, however, we find that the judgment is not applicable as the present petitioner passed the requisite essential qualification for the notified post in question. In this situation, it is not Item No. 05/C-4 30 OA No. 2545/2023 open for this Tribunal to enter into the arena to decide the issue of educational qualifications possessed by the applicant. Firstly, the respondents themselves laid down through their policy decision, the eligibility qualifications for the post in question but when it comes to implementation and selection, they applied the varied criteria, which is not a just approach. When the required qualifications have been notified through a public notice, the candidature of a candidate, who possessed such qualifications, cannot be taken away from the consideration of selection. When education qualification is specifically laid down and a candidate possessed the requisite qualification is available and he fulfils other laid down conditions for selection, as a logical conclusion, he needs to be considered for selection and if found fit needs to be selected. In view of this, the above mentioned judgment relied upon by the respondents is not applicable in the case in hand. So far as the other judgments relied upon by the respondents, as quoted above, are concerned, we have gone through the same, but we find that the facts of those cases are different to the facts of the case in hand and as such, the same are not helpful to the respondents.
22. The respondents No. 4 (UPSC) had issued an advertisement to recruit three Assistant Professors (ST-1, OBC-1 and UR-1) (Unani) in 'Munafe-Ul-Aza' in Govt. of Delhi vide Advertisement No. 4/2022, Vacancy No. Item No. 05/C-4 31 OA No. 2545/2023 22020410126. The essential qualification for the above mentioned posts is as follows:-
ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS (EQS):
(A) EDUCATIONAL:
(i) Degree in Unani Medicine from a University established by law or statutory board/faculty/examining body of Indian Medicine or equivalent as recognized under Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970.
(ii) A Post Graduate Degree in the subject/specialty concerned included in the schedule of Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970.
Note:
In case of non availability of post-graduate degree holder teachers in required speciality of Unani, the Doctor of Medicine in the allied disciplines will be considered. The details of allied subject are as follows:
Munafe-Ul-Aza Kulliyat Tib The total numbers of effective applications is 54. All the applications have been considered.
Modalities:
(1) PS has been done on the basis of the Scrutiny Report generated by the Computer System as per the information filled in by the candidates in the online application form and the documents/certificate uploaded with the ORA.
(2) In the Advertisement, applicants were asked to upload all certificates/documents along with Online Applications; however, many applicants have not uploaded complete certificates/documents. (3) The candidates of OBC category have been shortlisted as per their claim of OBC stating authentication is issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
The applications received from Non-Delhi candidates in OBC category were scrutinized as general candidate.
(4) For specialty of Unani, Munafe-Ul-Aza, the Kulliyate Tib is an allied specialty. The allied specialty of Kulliyate Tib has been taken as PG Degree in case of OBC (Delhi) candidates. However, in case of UR & OBC (outside Delhi), only main specialty i.e. Munafe-Ul-Aza has been considered as there are sufficient number of candidates are available. (5) Experience acquired as Part time/ hourly basis/ daily wages/visiting/Guest faculty/ Apprentice/ GET/ trainee/ Consultant/Honorary/ Self-employed and stipendiary has not been counted while counting experience. Experience on contract basis in the relevant field has been considered.
Item No. 05/C-4 32 OA No. 2545/2023 The following criteria has been adopted for short listing ST, OBC and UR candidates EQ-A(i) + EQ-A(ii)
1. The scrutiny and short-listing details of this recruitment case were initially uploaded on the website of the Commission on 09th February, 2023. Subsequently, the candidates were given window to express their concerns through email within 15 days.
2. One representation (Roll No. 35) was received against rejection and it was examined as under.
S. No. Remarks
1. The closing date of online application was 17-03-2022 and the result of her Post Graduate examination was declared on 24-03-2022. Hence, rejection maintained as she has not completed her post graduation before the closing date of Advertisement.
23. Final scrutiny details are as under:
Category Shor-Listed Candiates ST Roll No. 54.(o1 Candidate) OBC Roll Nos. 45, 47 & 49 (03 Candidates) UR Roll Nos. 04, 05, 13, 19, 27, 30 & 36 (07 candidates)
24. The applicant was shortlisted for the post of Assistant Professor (Unani) in 'Munafe-Ul-Aza' vide roll No. 49 under OBC category and has obtained 52 marks but was not recommended for appointment by respondent no. 4. The above details are mentioned in Annexure A-2. It is clear from Annexure-A/4 (Colly) that the applicant possesses degree on the subject 'Munafe-Ul-Aza' conferred on him in the convocation of the University of Delhi held in the year 2016.
Item No. 05/C-4 33 OA No. 2545/2023
25. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that respondents should have selected the applicant for the post of Assistant Professor (Unani) as he possesses the required qualification of 'Munafe-Ul-Aza'. However, they have not done so.
26. In view of above, the impugned orders at Annexure- A/1 and A/2 are quashed and set aside. It is further held that recommendation to select respondent no. 6 to the post of Assistant Professor (Unani) 'Munafe-ul-Aza' is also set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant who is having the requisite educational qualification i.e., 'Munafe-Ul- Aza' for the post of Assistant Professor (Unani) in the Directorate of Ayush under the respondent No. 2.
27. The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
28. The present OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
29. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No Order to cost.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/