Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Jyoti Kishore vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 3 January, 2025
1
O.A. No. 448/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 448/2016
Reserved on: 20.12.2024
Pronounced on: 03.01.2025
HON'BLE SHRI B. ANAND, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (J)
Ms. Jyoti Kishore d/o Shri Ram Kishore,
Aged about 27 years
B-37, Amrapali, Sector-1,
Rohini, New Delhi - 110 085.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Chairman,
Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan,
Pusa, New Delhi - 110 012.
2. Secretary,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
...Respondents
For Applicant: Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate
For Respondents: Mr. Madhu Tewatia, Advocate.
ORDER
AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER JUDICIAL:
The applicant's candidature for the post of Administrative Officer (AO) has been rejected and by means of this Application has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 to set aside rejection Order dated 01.01.2016 and to direct respondents to consider the applicant as an eligible candidate for issuance of offer of appointment with all consequential benefits.2 O.A. No. 448/2016
FACTS IN BREIF
2. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant that respondents issued notification dated 08.07.2014 for filling up 18 vacancies for the post of Administrative Officer [for brevity hereinafter referred as AO] at Indian Council of Agricultural Research [for brevity hereinafter referred as ICAR]. Applicant, finding herself eligible, applied for the post of AO through online application and appeared in the examination. Respondents issued impugned result dated 01.01.2016 (Annexure A-1) and candidature of applicant has been rejected stating that "The marks of the candidate in graduation are 54.22% candidature rejected as the prescribed eligibility is 55% at graduate level." The Educational Qualification for AO provides that candidate must be graduate of recognized University securing not less than 55% in the final degree examination or equivalent and should have working knowledge of computer. The applicant scored 264 marks out of 425 in the final degree examination of her graduation which works out to 62.12%. Applicant also possesses the higher qualification than prescribed qualification, i.e., MBA with 62.64% marks. Applicant submitted letter dated 14.01.2016 to allow her to appear in the interview but till date no response.
3. Per contra, respondents have filed the reply contesting the claim of the applicant stating that applicant is estopped challenging the eligibility condition as prescribed in the Notification dated 08.07.2014 in view of declaration given and accepted conditions and signed stating that she fulfills all conditions of eligibility including educational qualifications etc for the examination. The Para 1 of Notification provided candidates must ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination. Their admission to the exam will be purely provisional. If on verification at any later stage, it is found that any candidate does not fulfill all eligibility conditions, his/her candidature will be cancelled/rejected.
4. Respondents have further averred in the reply that prescribed educational qualification given in the notification dated 08.07.2014
- "candidate must be a graduate of a recognized University securing not less than 55% marks in the final degree examination or 3 O.A. No. 448/2016 equivalent and should have working knowledge of computer. (The graduation Course must be of minimum three years duration. In case of combined degree course leading to post graduation, separate degree certificate at graduation, level must be awarded to the candidate). Applicant has scored 54.22% at the graduation level and 62.12% marks in the final year of the degree examination and not in the final degree course. The applicant is not eligible as she has not scored 55% marks in final degree exam or equivalent final year of degree exam marks or equivalent there is difference. The eligibility prescribed as to percentage of marks in the degree examination or equivalent meaning that marks obtained at the final level degree exam including first, second and final year exam. The final degree exam is inclusive of all three years including final year exam of degree course. Applicant scored marks out of 1350 marks in B.Com degree in online application for A.O. as 54.22% for entire degree course and not in the final year of B.Com degree exam. There were sufficient number of SC/ST candidate and with 55% at degree level and no relaxation was prescribed. The minimum requisite educational qualification prescribed was 55% marks at graduation level and applicant scored aggregate 54.22% less than 55% marks hence her candidature was rejected vide Impugned Order dated 01.01.2016 and communication dated 29.01.2016 was issued to the applicant not impugned in the OA.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
5. Shri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for applicant contended and can be summarized as under -
(i) Respondents have illegally rejected candidature vide impugned Order dated 01.01.2016 for the post of A.O. stating that she does not fulfill eligibility of 55% at the graduate level, whereas the applicant has scored 62.12% in the final year degree examination, therefore, deserves to be eligible and qualified. So also possesses Diploma in Computer Applications and Programming with A-Grade. So also has MBA degree with 62.64% marks, higher to the required qualification. Applicant is SC category entitled for relaxation in eligibility criteria.4 O.A. No. 448/2016
(ii) Respondents have illegally rejected the candidature of the applicant based on aggregate marks for three year whereas in notification, requisite educational qualification for A.O. must be a graduate of a recognized University securing not less than 55% marks in the final degree examination or equivalent and should have working knowledge of computer.
(iii) Respondents have rejected the candidature of applicant based on misinterpretation of the Clause 3(a) of notification dated 08.07.2014.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
6. Shri Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued and can be summarized as under -
(i) Applicant participated in the selection process for AO/F&AO examination - 2014 and stated that she fulfilled all conditions of eligibility - educational qualification etc. Part-1 of Notification dated 08.07.2014 provided that candidates must ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions for admission to the exam and admission to the exam was purely provisional. The applicant was not eligible and her candidature was rejected vide Impugned Order dated 01.01.2016 in accordance with provision of recruitment rules and notification dated 08.07.2014.
(ii) The mandatory educational qualification required is that candidate must be a graduate of a recognized University securing not less than 55% marks in the final degree examination or equivalent and should have working knowledge of computer. (Graduation course must be of minimum 3 years duration). Applicant scored 54.22% at graduation level and 62.12% marks in the final year of the degree examination and applicant did not score 55% in the graduation, therefore, not eligible/qualified for the post.
(iii) The applicant suppressed communication dated 29.01.2016 informing her regarding rejection of candidature but same has not been challenged. On this sole ground, present OA liable to be dismissed.
5 O.A. No. 448/20167. No other point is pressed at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. We have bestowed our anxious considerations on the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material placed on record as well as considered precedents relied.
9. Admitted facts are - that notification dated 08.07.2014 (Annexure A-2) competitive examination for recruitment to the post of AO and F&AO at ICAR - Research Institutes-2014 for AO, 18 vacancies (UR-13, SC-01, ST-01, OBC-03, PWD (OH)-01). The educational qualification prescribed for AO, in sub-para (a) of Para-3
- for AO - "candidate must be of a recognized University securing not less than 55% marks in the final degree exam or equivalent and should have working knowledge of computer". Applicant has obtained degree of Bachelor of Commerce from University of Delhi in year 2011 and has obtained 213 marks out of 425 max. marks in B.Com. Part-I exam-2008, in Part-II 232 marks out of 500 marks and statement of marks in Part-III - 264 out of 425 marks. Applicant secured second division, passed. As evident from statement of marks of B.Com, the applicant secured grand total 732 out of max. marks of 1350 i.e. 54.22% in graduation. In Part-III, B.Com. 62.12% marks whereas in aggregate Part-I, II and III of B.Com exam, secured 54.22% marks. Respondents issued Impugned Order dated 01.01.2016 (Annexure A-1) list of rejected candidate for AO, applicant name is at serial no.2 - reasons for rejection - "The marks of the candidate in graduation are 54.22% candidature rejected as the prescribed eligibility is 55% at graduation level." So also applicant vide reply dated 29.01.2016 annexed as Annexure R-1 impugned in the OA. Applicant herself indicated her percentage of marks at graduation level as 54.22% in online application.
10. The dispute in the present case is that the stand of the respondents that accordance with sub-para (a) of Para-3 of notification dated 08.07.2014 for the post of A.O. educational 6 O.A. No. 448/2016 qualification required is candidate must be a graduate of a recognized University securing not less than 55% marks in the final degree exam or equivalent and should have working knowledge of computer (the graduation course must be of min. three years duration). The applicant herself indicated percentage of marks at graduation level as 54.22% in Online application form. Whereas the stand of the applicant that as per sub-para (a) of Para 3 of notification dated 08.07.2014, 55% marks in the final degree exam in graduation is required and in Part-III, B.Com. i.e. final year exam of B.Com., applicant secured 62.12% marks, hence eligible for participation in interview for A.O. THE ISSUE
11. From the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and material placed on record relevant rules, norms and precedent, the short issue arises for our consideration -
"Whether applicant possessed requisite educational qualification of graduate 55% marks in the final degree examination or equivalent in accordance with rules for filling up the posts of A.O.?"
12. Before dealing with rival contentions advanced at the Bar. It is apposite to quote relevant portion of rules for A.O/notification dated 08.07.2014 for combined competitive examination held by Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, Principles of statutory interpretation, judgments, to decide the controversy involved in the case in hands.
RULE OF LAW
13. The relevant rules for the combined competitive examination to be held by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board for purpose of filling up the posts of A.O. in Pay Band-3 Rs.15600- 39100 + GP Rs.5400 under direct recruitment quota of ICAR and extract of notification dated 08.07.2014 for ready reference reproduced as under :-
RULES FOR A.O. NOTIFICATION FOR A.O. 6. Educational & Other qualifications for 3. Educational qualifications the post of Administrative Officer a) For Administrative Officer 7 O.A. No. 448/2016 Candidate must be a Graduate of Candidate must be a Graduate of a recognized University securing not less recognized University securing not less than 55% mark in the final degree than 55% mark in the final degree examination or equivalent and should examination or equivalent and should have working knowledge of computer. have working knowledge of computer. (The graduation course must be of (The graduation course must be of minimum three years' duration. In case minimum three years' duration. In case of combined degree course leading to of combined degree course leading to post graduation, separate degree post graduation, separate degree certificate at graduation level must be certificate at graduation level must be awarded to the candidate). awarded to the candidate). [Emphasis supplied] CASE LAW 14.(A) Ambiguity can be settled by taking into consideration
meaning of express words and intent of the parties. In the case of (Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui v. Deputy Director of Health Services), 2008 (6) Bom.C.R. 723 (F.B.)(A.B.) : 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 941, a Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. Their Lordships, while applying the rule of "plain construction" observed as under:--
51. A statute is stated to be a will of the Legislature. It expresses a will of the Legislature, and function of the Court is to interpret the document, according to the intent of them that made it. It is a settled rule of construction of statute that the provisions should be interpreted with application of plain rule of construction. The courts normally would not imply anything in them which is inconsistent with the words expressly used by the statute. In other words, the Court would keep in mind that its function is jus dicere, not jus dare. The right of appeal being creation of a statute and being a statutory right does not invite unnecessary liberal or strict construction. The best norm would be to give literal construction keeping the legislative intent in mind.
52. The Supreme Court in the case of (Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers) , reported in 2004 (1) Bom.C.R. 380 (S.C.) : 2003 DGLS (soft) 293 : (2003) 6 SCC 659, while referring to the principles for interpretation of statutory provisions, held as under:
"19. It is a well-settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent. Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents. The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it. (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse.) , 1997 DGLS (soft) 899 : (1997) 6 SCC 312. The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in (Crawford v. Spooner) , 1846 (6) Moo. PCC 1 : 4 MIA 179 courts cannot aid the legislatures' defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend, and by construction make up deficiencies which are 8 O.A. No. 448/2016 left there. See (State of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel), 1998 DGLS (soft) 284 : (1998) 3 SCC 234. It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. See (Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.) , 1978 (1) All.E.R. 948 (H.L.). Rules of interpretation do not permit courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of a doubtful meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. Per Lord Loreburn, L.C. In (Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd.. Evans) , 1910 A.C. 445 (H.L.), quoted in (Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah) , 1962 DGLS (soft) 3 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 847."
53. The Law Commission of India, in its 183rd Report, while dealing with the need for providing principles of interpretation of statute as regards the extrinsic aids of interpretation in General Clauses Act, 1897 expressed the view that a statute is a will of legislature conveyed in the form of text. Noticing that process of interpretation is as old as language, it says that the rules of interpretation were evolved even at a very early stage of Hindu civilization and culture and the same were given by 'Jaimini', the author of Mimamsat Sutras, originally meant for srutis were employed for the interpretation of Smrities also. While referring to the said historical background, the Commission said thus:--
"It is well settled principle of law that as the statute is an edict of the Legislature, the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the intention of legislature.
The intention of legislature assimilates two aspects; one aspect carries the concept of 'meaning', i.e., what the word means and another aspect conveys the concept of 'purpose' and 'object' or the 'reason' or 'spirit' pervading through the statute. The process of construction, therefore, combines both the literal and purposive approaches However, necessity of interpretation would arise only where the language of a statutory provision is ambiguous, not clear or where two views are possible or where the provision gives a different meaning defeating the object of the statute. If the language is clear and unambiguous, no need of interpretation would arise. In this regard, a Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Su-preme Court in (R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay) , 1984 DGLS (soft) 98 : (1984) 2 SCC 183 : A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 684, has held:
".....If the words of the Statute are clear and unambiguous, it is the plainest duty of the Court to give effect to the natural meaning of the words used in the provision. The question of construction arises only in the event of an ambiguity or the plain meaning of the words used in the Statute would be self defeating."
Recently, again Supreme Court in (Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay) , 2002 DGLS (soft) 373 : (2002) 4 SCC 297, has followed the same principle and observed:
"Where the words are clear and there is no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for Court to take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions."
54. Above stated principles clearly show that the Court can safely apply rudiments of plain construction to legislative intent and object sought to be achieved by the enactment while interpreting the provision of an Act. It is not necessary for the Court to implant or exclude words or over emphasize the language of a provision where it is plain and simple."
[Emphasis supplied] B. In case of P.V. Indiresan Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 441., Their Lordships observed as -
9 O.A. No. 448/2016"20. In English language, many words have different meanings and a word can be used in more than one sense. Every dictionary gives several meanings for each word. The proper use of a dictionary lies in choosing the appropriate meaning to the word, with reference to the context in which the word is used. Meaning cannot be mechanically applied. Nor can an inappropriate meaning be chosen. The context in which the word is used determines the meaning of the word. A randomly chosen meaning for the word should not change the context in which the word is used. There is the fundamental principle relating to use of words to convey a thought or explain a position or describe an event."
[Emphasis supplied] C. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of University Grants Commission and Anr. Vs. Neha Anil Bobde [Gadekar], reported in (2013) 10 SCC 519, Their Lordships held -
"30. We are of the considered view that the candidates were not misled in any manner. Much emphasis has been made on the words "clearing the National Eligibility Test". "Clearing" means clearing the final results, not merely passing in Paper I, Paper II and Paper III, which is only the initial step, not final. To clear the NET Examination, as already indicated, the candidate should satisfy the final qualifying criteria laid down by the UGC before declaration of the results"
[Emphasis supplied] PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
15. (i) ejusdem generis -
Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Hon'ble Justice G.P Singh on Rule of ejusdem generis -when particular words pertaining to a class, category or genus are followed by general words, the general words are construed as limited to the things of the same kind as those specified. This rule is known as the rule of ejusdem generis.
(ii) Noscitur a sociis -
The rule of construction noscitur a sociis - meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps, it is legitimate rule of construction to construe words with reference to words found in immediate connection with them. It is a rule wider than the rule of ejusdem generis.
16. Before dealing with the core issue and contentions advanced, it is apposite to reproduce relevant extract of the impugned rejection order dated 01.01.2016 (Annexure A-1) and communication reply dated 26.01.2016 (Annexure R-1) as under -
10 O.A. No. 448/2016(A) "RESULT NOTICE DATED 01.01.2016.
LIST OF REJECTED CANDIDATES
S. Reg.No. Roll No. Name Reason for rejection
No.
2 429630 04104967 Jyoti The marks of the
Kishore candidate in graduation
are 54.22%. Candidature
rejected as the prescribed
eligibility is 55% at
graduation level.
[Emphasis supplied]
(B) REPLY/COMMUNICATION DATED 26.01.2016
"2. So far as her plea at (i) above is concerned, she had herself indicated her percentage of marks at graduation level as 54.22% in the application form submitted by her. Copy of the same is enclosed. Now she has claimed that she secured 62.12% marks by referring to the marks secured by her in Part-III of her B.Com degree. But the fact is that she secured finally 732 marks out of 1350 marks in B.Com degree, which she correctly reflected in her application form as 54.22%. If her contention of securing 62.12% marks were correct, she should have taken the same stand while filling up application form. Her own contentions are, therefore, contradictory.
3. So far as her plea at (ii) above is concerned, such relaxation has been provided in the guidelines issued by the Govt. to relax only the 'experience' qualification in the case of SC/ST candidates, that too if sufficient number of candidates from these communities possessing the requisite experience are not likely to be available. We have sufficient number of SC candidates who possess the prescribed qualification of 55% at degree level, shortlisted for interview call for this Exam. Hence, this plea of Ms. Jyoti regarding relaxation in qualification is also not a reasonable ground to restore her candidature.
xxx xxx xxx
6. It is also pertinent to mention that Ms. Jyoti Kishore had made the following declaration regarding provisions of the Examination Notification:
"I have read the provisions in the Notification for AO/F&AO Examination-2014 carefully, and I hereby undertake to abide by the same. I further declare that I fulfill all the conditions of eligibility regarding age limits, educational qualifications, etc prescribed for admission to the examination."
Hence, there is no merit in the contention made by her at this stage to term the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Notification as unconstitutional and arbitrary.
Therefore, the decision regarding rejection of her candidature is reiterated."
[Emphasis supplied]
17. Now again coming to the case in hand and examining the basic facts in light of the above principles. The rules for filling up the post of A.O. as extracted hereinabove and provide for essential educational qualifications that "candidate must be a graduate of 11 O.A. No. 448/2016 recognized University securing not less than 55% marks in the final degree examination or equivalent and should have working knowledge of computer (The graduation course must be of minimum three years duration. In case of combined degree course leading to post graduation, separate degree certificate at graduation level must be awarded to the candidate)."
18. Shri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for applicant much emphasized that applicant fulfills eligibility criteria as prescribed in the rules/notification dated 08.07.2014. Applicant is fully eligible for the post of AO as she has graduation degree of B.Com from recognized University of Delhi with 62.12% marks in the final degree examination.
19. It is the admitted fact that applicant herself indicated her percentage of marks at graduation level as 54.22% in the Online application for the post of A.O. Applicant has passed B.Com degree by passing Part-I, Part-II and Part-III exam and finally graduation degree with result - 54.22% less than requisite 55% marks in graduation level.
20. In any case it is always better to have ordinary and popular meaning of criteria for eligibility prescribing educational qualification that a candidate must be a graduate of a recognized University securing not less than 55% marks in the final degree examination or equivalent. The relevant provision prescribing educational qualification a graduate course of three years duration is mandatory and with 55% marks in the final degree exam. In ordinary and popular meaning "final degree examination" in context with which the "final degree examination is to be given appropriate meaning with reference to the context in which the word is used. In our considered opinion the essential eligibility criteria in considering meaning is that applicant must be a graduate with not less than 55% marks in the final degree examination result and marks in Part-I, Part-II & III of B.Com. degree exam are only the initial steps for final result - final degree examination. The applicant will be considered eligible for the selection to the post of A.O. only, if she has 55% in final degree exam, graduate level course of minimum three years and not merely passing Part-III, final degree examination 12 O.A. No. 448/2016 of graduation level. Applicant has secured less than 55% marks in B.Com degree, three years graduation course and as per relevant rules/notification for post of AO not eligible as minimum educational criteria prescribed is minimum 55% marks in final result of graduation level course.
21. We have already examined that there is no ambiguity in the language of relevant rule/notification dated 08.07.2014 prescribing minimum educational qualification - graduation with 55% marks as eligibility criteria and it is not only in Part-III/final year of graduation. The final degree examination in graduation means final result not merely passing in Part-III of graduation level course. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of University Grants Commission & Anr. Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) (supra), Their Lordships held that clearing in NET means clearing in the final result not merely passing in Paper-I, Paper-II and Paper-III, which is only the initial steps, not final. To clear the NET exam, as already indicated, the candidate should satisfy the final qualifying criteria laid down by UGC before declaration of the result."
22. Though there is no ambiguity in the language of rules/Para 3(a) of notification dated 08.07.2014 as extracted hereinabove, but even if it is assumed and examined from the angle of counsel for applicant that candidate must be a graduate with 55% marks in final degree examination, means marks secured only in Part-III, final year of B.Com. Exam and not in aggregate of Part-I, Part-II and Part-III.
23. Now examining the ambiguity assumed and much emphasized by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant secured 54.22% marks in graduation less than 55% marks in aggregate but secured 62% more than 55% marks in final degree exam in graduation and hence eligible for the selection.
24. We have taken help of principles of statutory interpretation -
"noscitur a sociis" is a known maxim that is applied to such situation. We cannot assign any meaning to the rule, sub-para (a) of Para 3 of Notification dated 08.07.2014 in conflict with recruitment rules for post of A.O. to defeat the very distinction stated in the 13 O.A. No. 448/2016 advertisement dated 08.07.2014 between candidates already passed degree exam with 55% in aggregate and selected and appointed. The rule of construction noscitur a sociis - stipulates that "meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps, it is legitimate rule of construction to construe words with reference to words found in immediate connection with them." The sub-para (a) of Para-3 - Educational Qualification for A.O. in notification dated 08.07.2014/recruitment rules for A.O. is clear as noon day that applicant must be a graduate of three years duration course of a recognized University. So also to construe the word "Securing not less than 55% marks in the final degree examination or equivalent"
be judged and given meaning with company of words graduate, graduate course of three years or equivalent. Meaning thereby that applicant/candidate to be eligible for the selection must have secured not less than 55% marks in the final degree examination in Part-I, Part-II & Part-III in aggregate. The final result of B.Com degree and not in Part-III - final year is initial one of the steps but in final result - 55% marks in final degree exam i.e. 55% marks finally in the graduation. Admittedly applicant secured 54.22% marks in B.Com final degree exam i.e. less than 55% in graduation and respondents rightly rejected her candidature vide Impugned Order dated 01.01.2016 and reply dated 26.01.2016. The Original Application is bereft of merits, no interference is called for and deserves to be dismissed.
25. Shri Shashank Kumar, counsel for the applicant also relied upon the case of M/s. Grasim Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in (2002) 4 SCC 297: AIR 2002 SC 1706. We have carefully gone through the above cited judgment.
26. But it is settled position of law that judgment has got no universal application rather the judgment is to be tested on the basis of fact of each case. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 2014 (5) SCC 75, Their Lordships held -
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it 14 O.A. No. 448/2016 actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact-situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."
[Emphasis supplied]
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nair Service Society Vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 545. Their Lordships held -
"Service Law- Service Jurisprudence - Judgments on service law, held, should be understood in the context of relevant service rules."
[Para 48]
28. Now we are examining the factual aspect as was in the case of M/s. Grasim Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra) and found therefrom that it was a case related to question on whether Karbate Tubes made of artificial graphite impregnated with Phenolic resin which are parts of heat exchangers are classifiable under Tariff item: sub-heading in first schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Their Lordships held that the rule has to be applied with care and caution and it becomes the duty of Courts to give those words their plain and ordinary meaning.
29. But here case in our hand analyzed in detail and found that applicant has secured 54.22% less than 55% marks in three years graduation level degree course and as per Para 3(a) of notification dated 08.07.2014 and relevant recruitment rules for A.O., the applicant found to be ineligible and vide Impugned Order dated 01.01.2016, the candidature has been rejected.
30. Therefore, the judgment rendered in case of M/s. Grasim Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra) not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
31. That apart, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC
357. Their Lordships categorically held that "those of the candidates who participated in the exam and are unsuccessful cannot be heard to challenge the process of the exam subsequently".
15 O.A. No. 448/2016CONCLUSION
32. We have already analyzed in detail the issue and in light of aforesaid analysis, we decide the issue against the applicant and in favour of the respondents.
33. The Impugned order dated 01.01.2016 in the present OA is upheld being justified so far as it relates to the applicant rejecting candidature as not fulfilling prescribed eligibility 55% marks at graduate level and same does not suffer from any legal infirmity and applicant is not entitled to the relief sought in the OA.
34. Resultantly, the O.A being devoid of merits accordingly dismissed.
35. There shall be no order as to costs.
36. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(B. Anand) (Ajay Pratap Singh) (Member (A) Member (J) /na/