Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Coram vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH T.A.NO.30 OF 2013 New Delhi, this the 26th August, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms.Deepti Mishra, D/o Shri R.S.Mishra, R/o C-34, Qutub Vihar Phase I, (Near Sector 19,Dwarka), New Delhi 110071 Applicant (By Advocate: Mr.R.S.Mishra) Vs. 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi 110011 2. Director General, D.R.D.O., D.R.D.O.Bhawan, New Delhi 110011 3. Director, C.E.P.T.A.M., Metcalfe House, Delhi 110054 . Respondents (By Advocate: Mr.T.A.Ansari) ORDER RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):
The applicant had filed W.P. (C) No. 7448 OF 2012 before the Honble High Court of Delhi, praying for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to allow the petitioner for interview for the post of Assistant Hindi in an unbiased manner;
ii) Direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Assistant Hindi with respondent No.2 and 3 without any hurdle as she has done good in her written examination and there is no chance that she can be rejected at any count in the interview for the said post;
iii) Direct the respondents to reserve at least one post for the petitioner till the decision on this writ petition;
iv) Direct the respondents to arrange supplementary interview for the petitioner for the said post, if main interview for the post has already been finished;
v) Pass any other order/directions/relief as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper, in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. The Honble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 26.4.2013, transferred the said W.P. (C) No. 7448 of 2012 to this Tribunal as the subject-matter concerns recruitment to a civil post under the Union of India. Accordingly, the said W.P. (C) No.7448 of 2012, on transfer, was registered as T.A. No.30 of 2013 on the file of the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts of the applicants case are that she had graduated from Lady Sri Ram College for Women under the University of Delhi in the year 2003. By Advertisement No.CEPTAM-05, published in Employment News dated 10th-16th March, 2012, respondent nos. 2 and 3 invited applications from eligible persons for selection and appointment to various posts, including the post of Assistant Hindi (Post Code No.0301) (Annexure A). The Essential Qualification Requirement (EQR) for the post of Assistant Hindi was: Masters Degree of a recognized University in English/Hindi, with Hindi and English as compulsory elective subjects at degree level OR Bachelors degree with Hindi and English as main subjects (which includes the term compulsory and elective) and two years Experience of translation from English to Hindi Or vice versa. In response thereto, she made application for the post of Assistant Hindi. Along with her application, she submitted copies of all testimonials including the B.A. with Sanskrit Honours certificate and the statements of marks issued by the University of Delhi (Annexure B). She was issued Admit Card (Annexure C) to appear in the written examination on 5.8.2012. Accordingly, she appeared in the said written examination. The result of the written examination was declared in the month of October 2012. She was declared successful in the written examination. Respondent no.3 issued call letter (Annexure D) requiring her to be present on 21.11.2012, at 9.00 A.M., at Board-I, CEPTAM, for verification of certificates/testimonials and for interview. Accordingly, the applicant reported for interview, but she was not allowed to appear before the Interview Board on the ground that her educational qualifications were not as per the advertisement and, hence, she was ineligible to appear for interview. It is the contention of the applicant that she having studied both English and Hindi as her elective subjects at graduation level, the respondents ought not to have treated her ineligible to appear for interview, and therefore, their decision disallowing her to appear for interview is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal and irrational.
3. Opposing the Writ Petition/T.A., the respondents have filed two counter replies, one on 17.4.2013, and the other on 13.5.2014. They have also filed an additional affidavit on 17.3.2015. It is stated by the respondents that the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) is working under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, and is responsible for development of state of the art battle file systems required by Nations forces, viz., Army, Navy & Air Force. It has more than 52 laboratories spread over the country which are working in diversified research areas across the spectrum of science. Apart from other posts, DRDO also recruits persons for the post of Assistant Hindi. The main job of the person selected against this post is to help the Hindi Officer and Scientists to work as per guidelines of Rajabhasha Nedeshalya. This involves frequent translation from English to Hindi and vice versa of both administrative/scientific nature. Hence, DRDO wants that person selected against the post of Assistant Hindi should have vast and comprehensive knowledge of both English and Hindi. Hence, EQR for this post is Masters Degree of English/Hindi with Hindi and English as compulsory Elective subjects at degree level. In case candidate is not having required Masters Degree, then Bachelors Degree with Hindi and English as main subjects and two years experience of translation from English to Hindi or vice versa is required. India being a country with diversified culture, some University may term Hindi/English subject as compulsory, and some as elective. DRDO will consider both the cases provided these are main subjects which are mentioned in Bachelors Degree awarded by the University. In this case, the applicant gave wrong information in her application form by showing English, Hindi, Sanskrit, History as main subjects in Bachelors Degree. Based on the above information in her application, she was called for verification of certificates/testimonial followed by interview. The applicant produced the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours Course) certificate, where subject mentioned is Sanskrit, i.e., her main subject is Sanskrit only. There is no mention of Hindi or English. For the requirement of two years experience, she produced a certificate from G.Shrivastava & Associates. The officer of document verification board informed the applicant that in her Bachelors degree certificate, subject is Sanskrit only and hence she was not eligible for the post of Assistant Hindi. Further, her experience certificate is also not in order. But she was not satisfied, and she insisted for meeting the higher authority. The officer of document verification board referred her case to higher authority. Two senior officers, who met her and thoroughly scrutinized her documents, found that her main subject of study in Bachelors degree is Sanskrit, and not Hindi and English, i.e., she has passed the Bachelors degree with Sanskrit subject. She tried to mislead the respondents, by producing Statement of Marks. She was made to understand that as per advertisement, Hindi and English are required as main subjects in Bachelors Degree certificate and not in Statement of Marks. She was further made to understand that main subject of study is mentioned in Bachelors Degree Certificate, while Statement of marks is basically for indicating the marks obtained in main and other papers studied for qualifying the award of Bachelors Degree in the main subject by the University. She was not able to produce the proper documents in support of her claim to have two years experience of translation from English to Hindi or vice versa. She produced a certificate from G. Shrivastava & Associates, Advocates, the status of which was not clear as per relevant company laws of India. Further, the exact period of her experience was not mentioned in the certificate, although duration was mentioned. She could not give satisfactory answer to the queries regarding appointment letter, salary received, EPF, various taxes paid by employee/employer, etc., as per relevant orders of the Government of India. All this created doubts regarding the validity of experience certificate. On her further request, she was allowed to meet the highest authority, i.e., Director, CEPTAM. He also made her understand that she was not eligible for the post of Assistant Hindi. The applicant is misleading the Tribunal by stressing on Statements of Marks which are issued for showing the marks obtained in main and other papers studied for qualifying the award of Bachelors Degree in main subject by the University. The main subject of study is mentioned in Bachelors Degree certificate. In the Advertisement, DRDO has prescribed Hindi and English as main subjects in Bachelors Degree and not in Statement of Marks. In her Bachelors Degree certificate, Sanskrit is mentioned as subject. She is also not able to produce clear certificate of experience of translation from English to Hindi or vice versa. Hence, she is not eligible for the post of Assistant Hindi in DRDO. In support of their statements, the respondents have filed copies of the application form and of the Bachelor Degree certificate, vide Annexure R-I and Annexure R-II.
4. No rejoinder reply has been filed by the applicant refuting the stand taken by the respondents.
5. We have perused the records and have heard Mr. R.S.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. T.A.Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. In the advertisement, the essential qualification requirement (EQR) for the post of Assistant Hindi was prescribed as follows:
EQR: Masters Degree of a recognized University in English/Hindi, with Hindi and English as compulsory elective subjects at degree level OR Bachelors degree with Hindi and English as main subjects (which includes the term compulsory and elective) and two years Experience of translation from English to Hindi Or vice versa.
7. The Bachelors Degree certificate, which was produced by the applicant before the respondents, reads thus:
Enrol. No.LSR-629/2002 Roll No.2075594 University of Delhi BACHELOR OF ARTS (HONOURS COURSE), 2005 This is to certify that Deepti Mishra having been examined in 2005, and found qualified for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours Course) (10+2+3 Scheme) was admitted to the said degree at the Convocation held in 2006.
Subject Sanskrit Division Second Registrar Vice-Chancellor University of Delhi Delhi, dated the 25th February,2006 University of Delhi
8. The statements of marks for Parts I, II and III Examinations of B.A.(Hons.) produced by the applicant reveal that her main subject was Sanskrit, and she appeared in examination for 8 papers of Sanskrit subject; Parts I and II comprising two papers each, and Part III comprising four papers, and each such paper carrying 100 marks. She obtained 426 out of 800 marks. The said statements of marks also reveal that the applicant studied Hindi and English, as MIL, or subject in lieu, and appeared in examination for 100 marks each and obtained 85 out of 200 marks. She also studied Subsidiary subjects (two papers carrying 100 marks each) and appeared in examination for the same and obtained 94 out of 200 marks. It also transpires from the statement of marks issued to the applicant for Part III Examination that the marks obtained by her in MIL, or subject in lieu, and in Subsidiary subjects were not taken into account by the University for assigning her Division in which she was awarded Bachelors Degree[B.A. (Honours Course) Subject Sanskrit] by the University, and that is how, she was placed in Second Division in B.A. (Hons.) on the basis of her having obtained 426 out of 800 marks in 8 papers of Sanskrit subject. Thus, it is evident that the applicant was awarded degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Sanskrit as main subject, and she studied Hindi and English as MIL, or subject in lieu, and Subsidiary subjects, and she passed therein for being awarded the Bachelors Degree in the main subject Sanskrit by the University. Therefore, she cannot be said to have Bachelors Degree with Hindi and English as main subjects.
9. Laying emphasis on the term: which includes the term compulsory and elective, put in the bracket, appearing after the words Bachelors degree with Hindi and English as main subjects, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had studied English and Hindi as her elective subjects at the graduation level as part of her course Sanskrit (Honours) and, therefore, she fulfilled the essential educational qualification for the post of Assistant Hindi. We are not impressed by this submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. The term, which includes the term compulsory and elective, which is put in brackets and appearing after the words, Bachelors degree with Hindi and English as main subjects, refers to the main subjects of Hindi and English in the Bachelors Degree as compulsory or elective subjects at the graduation level. As we have already found, the applicant had studied Hindi and English, as M.I.L. or subject in lieu, and other Subsidiary subjects, for being awarded the degree of B.A. (Honours) in Sanskrit subject. Even the marks obtained by her in Hindi and English as M.I.L. or subject in lieu, and the marks obtained by her in Subsidiary subjects, being of qualifying nature, were not taken into account by the University for assigning her Division in which she passed B.A.(Honours) in Sanskrit subject.
10. As regards the other part of the essential qualification requirement (EQR), the applicant produced an experience certificate issued by G.Shrivastava & Associates, Advocates, on 4.4.2008, which reads thus:
G.SHRIVASTAVA & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES GYANESHWAR OFFICE:A-3, SECTOR-1 Advocate PAPPN KALAN DELHI HIGH COURT DWARKA NEW DELHI 110075 MOBILE NO.9810576656 Ref: No Dated 4.4.2008 TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Ms.Deepti Mishra D/o Shri R.S.Mishra R/o C-34, Qutub Vihar, Phase I, Near Sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi 110071 has worked with me as translator from Hindi to English and vice versa for two years. She has good command over language and she is competent translator. Sd/- As has been pointed out by the respondents, the above experience certificate does not disclose the details of post held by the applicant, appointment letter, date of appointment of the applicant to any post, exact period of her service, salary received by the applicant, EPF contributions, taxes paid by employee/employer, etc. Although no format of experience certificate was prescribed by the respondents in the advertisement, yet, in the absence of the aforesaid details being mentioned in the purported experience certificate produced by the applicant before the respondents, we do not find any fault with the respondents for not accepting the validity of the purported experience certificate produced by the applicant in support of her claim to have two years experience of translation from English to Hindi or vice versa, which was one of the essential qualification requirements for the post of Assistant Hindi.
11. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondents in not allowing the applicant to appear for interview for the post of Assistant Hindi as she did not fulfill the essential qualification requirement (EQR) for the said post as per the Advertisement, and that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for the reliefs claimed by her. The T.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the T.A. is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN