Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rakesh Shokanda vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 April, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 2847/2010 NEW DELHI THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2011 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) Shri Rakesh Shokanda, S/o Shri Rajbir Singh Shokanda, R/o House No. 418, Near New Chopal, Village & PO Chhawala, New Delhi-110071. Applicant. (By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan) VERSUS 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCTD, Nava sachivalya, IP Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, H&FW Department, Govt. of NCTD, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, DSSSB, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-92. Respondents. (By Advocate Shri Vijay Pandita) ORDER (ORAL)
Justice P. Swaroop Reddy, Member (J).
The applicant seeks appointment as Occupational Therapist in Delhi Subordinate Service for which post, according to him, he was eligible for selection. The facts are as follows.
2. The applicant, who completed Bachelor of Occupational Therapy from Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University, applied for recruitment to the post of Occupational Therapist, Post Code 178/07, in response to an advertisement by Govt. of NCTD, dated 5-11/01.2008. The required educational qualification was F.Sc/Pre-medical/Hr. Secondary with Science and diploma in Occupational Therapy from a recognized institution. The desirable qualification was two years experience in Occupational Therapy in a Hospital. The applicant was allotted Roll No. 17810074 for written examination at Govt. Boys. Sr. School, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. He appeared in the examination, held on 21.09.2008, result of which was declared. But his result was kept pending for want of documents. He made representation to the Secretary, DSSSB clarifying his educational qualification but he was not given appointment. The post is still vacant.
3. According to the applicant, respondents failed to apply their mind that he had cleared all the examinations of Bachelor of Occupational Therapy in May-June, 2007 and further much prior to the last date of the receipt of application form, the result was also declared. According to him, the internship is not essential as per the essential qualification in the advertisement and as such he cannot be denied appointment for want of completion of internship.
4. Thus, the case of the applicant is that he was qualified for being appointed as Occupational Therapist having been completed the Degree in Occupational Therapy but he was not considered for the reason that on the relevant cut off date, he did not acquire the requisite essential qualification.
5. The respondents filed counter mainly contending that the applicant completed his diploma with mandatory internship on 29.02.2008 and the certificate of the qualification was issued on 13.03.2008, which was after the cut off date i.e. 21.01.2008. On scrutiny of documents, it was found that the candidate did not possess the essential qualification on closing date, as such he was not selected.
6. The main contention of the applicant is that as per the advertisement, there was no requirement of completion of internship. Only completion of Degree/Diploma was sufficient.
7. The question is whether, without completion of internship, one can be treated as having completed the Degree. A certificate filed by the applicant, copy of which is at page 24, shows that it was issued by Delhi Institute of Rural Development with regard to internship completion. It reads that Rakesh Shokanda (present applicant)..for Bachelor of Occupational therapy programme has satisfactorily completed his six months of mandatory rotatory internship from 29.8.2007 to 28.2.2008. But further reads that He is now eligible for the award of Bachelors of Occupational therapy degree. Thus, it is more than clear from the above certificate that unless one completes internship, it will not be regarded as being eligible for award of the degree in Occupational Therapy. Thus, the applicant cannot contend that he had completed his Degree in Occupational Therapy much prior to the examination when the certificate referred above clearly says that only on completion of internship, he shall be eligible for the award of the degree. That being the case, it cannot be said that on the relevant cut off date, the applicant was qualified to be appointed for the post of Occupational Therapist. That being so, there is no merit in the O.A. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (P. Swaroop Reddy)
Member (A) Member (J)
`SRD