Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Abir Chandan Barai vs M/O Finance, D/O Revenue on 8 January, 2026
1
Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024
Court No. 4
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 2121/2024
Reserved on:- 12.12.2025
Pronounced on:- 08.01.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Abir Chandan Barai, age -32 years,
S/o Sh. Jadunandan Barai,
Vill P.O. -Gobradan,
P.S. -Moyna Tamluk,
Purba Medinipur,
West Bengal - 721642.
Post -Chemical Assistant (Group -B)
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Sudip Lodha and Ms. Shattika for
Mr. Narender Kumar)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Director (RL),
Central Revenues Control Laboratory,
Hillside Road, Pusa Campus,
New Delhi - 110012.
3. The Under Secretary,
Staff Selection Commission,
Block No. 12, Lodhi Road, Gokalpuri,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Colony,
New Delhi - 110003.
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. U. Srivastava)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.01.09
09:50:50
NI +05'30'
2
Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024
Court No. 4
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Issue an order or direction to the Respondents to give appointment to the Applicant as being a thoroughly eligible and successful candidate and recommended by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the appointment, in terms of the Recruitment Notice/ Advertisement No. NR/2/2017 (Post Category No. NR/21317) and in the Central Revenues Subordinate Chemical Service (Group "B‟ Non-Gazetted post) Chemical Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015;
or
(b). Issue an order or direction to quash the essential qualification/ eligibility criteria for the post of Chemical Assistant in Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) under Ministry of Finance, Government of India, requiring Experience certificate only of the "Listed Private Sector Organization" as per the Recruitment Notice/ Advertisement No. NR/2/2017 (Post Category No. NR/21317) and in the Central Revenues Subordinate Chemical Service (Group "B‟ Non-Gazetted post) Chemical Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015 as being violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; or
(c). Issue an order or direction to the Respondents to give appointment to the applicant for the post of Chemical Assistant by relaxing the eligibility criteria, if required in terms of the Recruitment Notice/ Advertisement No. NR/2/2017 (Post Category No. NR/21317) and in the Central Revenues Subordinate Chemical Service (Group "B‟ Non-Gazetted post) Chemical Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015.
(d) Pass such further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon‟ble Tribunal deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case"
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 3 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4
2.1. The applicant was selected and recommended by the Staff Selection Commission in 2018 for appointment as Chemical Assistant (Group-B) in the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) and possessed more than the prescribed two years' work experience obtained from Vidyasagar University, West Bengal, as JRF/SRF leading to Ph.D. in Chemistry. It was submitted that despite a final order dated 04.11.2020 passed in OA No. 1195/2020 directing verification of experience, the respondents deliberately refused appointment on untenable grounds, resulting in prolonged litigation and denial of appointment since 2018.
2.2. Learned counsel contended that such denial was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752; Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, (2005) 9 SCC 779; and Food Corporation of India v. Rimjhim, AIR 2019 SC 1954, and therefore, the applicant was entitled to appointment with all consequential benefits. 2.3 Learned counsel for the applicant highlighted the order dated 03.08.2021 by which the Competent ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 4 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 Authority amongst the respondents has rejected the case of the applicant by observing as under:-
"In view of the facts and law, I am of the considered view that the applicant does not fulfil the experience criteria in terms of the Recruitment Rules, as per the application made to the Commission and the documents submitted subsequently alongwith the representation, by the applicant in support of his claim of having the requisite experience for the post, have not been found to be valid document on re-consideration. Accordingly, offer of appointment cannot be issued in favour of the applicant based on the recommendation of the Commission as noted above."
2.4 Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the fact that the applicant was having more than 3 years of experience in the field of chemical analysis and research from a Recognized University, and he produced his following experience certificates of 3.5 years of Vidyasagar University, West Bengal (Recognized University) with the SSC detailed as under:
Nature of Name of Appointment Monthly the From-To Permanent, S No. Total Period Remunera Post dd/mm/yy Regular, tion Held Temporary, Part Time, Contract July, 2013 M.Sc.
1. To 01 year Regular N/A Project June, 2014 Regular July, 2015 Researc Research Work To
2. h 05 months leading to Ph.D N/A November, Fellow (Sc.) in 2015 Chemistry Junior Researc 26.11.2015 01 years 10
3. h To -Do- 25,000/-
months Fellow 24.09.2017 (JRF) Senior Researc 01.02.2018 4 -Do- 28,000/-
h Ongoing
Fellow
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.01.09
09:50:50
NI +05'30'
5
Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024
Court No. 4
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant did not fulfill the statutory requirement of possessing two years' experience in chemical analysis or research as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules, 2015, and therefore had no right to appointment as Chemical Assistant in the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL).
3.1. It was contended that the experience claimed by the applicant for the period 06.2013 to 06.2014 was only academic M.Sc. project work, which could not be treated as professional research experience, and that the remaining experience as Junior Research Fellow suffered from discrepancies in dates and did not tally with the particulars furnished in the application form submitted to the Staff Selection Commission. 3.2. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the applicant subsequently sought to rely upon additional periods of experience, including as Research Fellow and Senior Research Fellow, which were not disclosed at the time of application and, therefore, could not be considered after the closing date. It was argued that no relaxation of essential qualification was ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 6 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 granted by the SSC, the power to relax eligibility vests only with the Central Government, and that the respondents acted strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and advertisement conditions. 3.3. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that pursuant to GSR 749(E) dated 01.10.2015, the Staff Selection Commission issued a fresh advertisement bearing No. Phase- IX/2021/Selection Post, under File No. 15/1/2021-RHQ, dated 24.09.2021, for recruitment to 92 posts of Chemical Assistant in the Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi. It was submitted that upon completion of the selection process, 45 candidates joined the post of Chemical Assistant in CRCL. Learned counsel further submitted that the Staff Selection Commission thereafter issued another advertisement bearing No. Phase-XI/2023/Selection Post (Post Code NR-23023) dated 06.03.2023 for the same post, and that document verification in respect thereof had already been completed and the select list was awaited. 3.4. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 11980/2022 titled Union of India & Anr. vs. Rizwan Zafar and anr. decided on 29.07.2022. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 7 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. This is the second round of litigation. In the first round, i.e., in O.A. No. 1195/2020, the Tribunal had observed that there was no dispute regarding the applicant's possession of the requisite degree in Chemistry. The dispute pertained solely to the nature of the experience in chemical analysis and research. The Original Application was disposed of with the following directions:
"8. We, therefore, dispose of the OAs directing that:
(a) The experience of the applicants in any University other than the one during the period of study shall be taken into account, if it is in the field stipulated in the notification.
(b) If the applicants have any material as regard the identity of the listed company where they worked, it shall be open to them to supply it to the concerned authority, who in turn shall verify the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
There shall be no order as to costs." 5.2 We find that the Recruitment Rules, 2015 recognize two years of experience in chemical analysis or research in a recognized institute or university. The rules are explicit and do not specify that the experience must be for a particular post. In the present case, the experience as Research Fellow/Senior Research Fellow could not ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 8 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 have been ignored. Interpreting the rules to mean that research work should not be counted for the position of Chemical Assistant would render the provision regarding two years of experience in chemical analysis or research in a recognized institute or university meaningless and redundant.
5.3 In Dr. M.C. Gupta and Ors. vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta and Ors. [1979] 2 SCR 853, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"12. The second contention which found favour with the High Court was that the requisite teaching or research experience must be acquired while holding the post set out in the regulation in that subject In other words, the view of the High Court is that the teaching/research experience must be acquired while holding the post of Reader/Assistant Professor in Medicine for five years in a Medical College. The High Court placed the emphasis on the experience acquired while holding the post. The relevant regulation requires teaching/research experience as Reader/Assistant Professor (which includes Lecturer) in Medicine for five years in a Medical College. Regulation 4 has to be read along with specific regulation. Regulation 4 clearly shows that 50% of the time spent in recognised research in the same or allied subject will be given credit provided that 50% of the teaching experience shall be regular teaching experience. The specific regulation prescribing the qualification will have to be read subject to the general regulation prescribed under Regulation 4 because the experience qualification prescribed in specific regulation must be calculated according to the formula prescribed in general regulation No. 4. The specific regulation requires 5 years' teaching/research experience. In calculating the research experience in the light of Regulation 4, 2 1/2 years' experience shall be specifically teaching experience and credit can be given to the extent of 50% of the time spent in recognised research as prescribed in the regulation, which experience can be in the same subject, viz., the subject ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 9 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 for which the recruitment is being made or in allied subject. So far there is no dispute. The question is:
while acquiring research experience, is it incumbent that the person conducting research must also hold of necessity designated post in the regulation ? Now, if general Regulation 4 is properly analysed for the purposes of computing research experience, the pre- requisite is that the research must be done after obtaining requisite post-graduate qualification. It has no reference to the post held by the person engaged in research at the time of conducting the research. The heading is 'teaching/research experience'. The dichotomy will have to be applied to teaching and research experience for the purpose of computation. So far as teaching experience is concerned, it must be acquired while holding the post specified in the regulation. But to say that holding of the post is a pre- requisite while conducting research is to read in Regulation 4 what is not prescribed thereunder. The specific regulation prescribing qualification will have to be read subject to general Regulation 4 and not vice versa. This also becomes manifest from the fact that general Regulation 4 also provides that 50% of the teaching experience shall be regular teaching experience meaning thereby that if someone is engaged exclusively in research, he cannot claim to satisfy the teaching experience qualification prescribed in the regulation. Reading specific regulation with general Regulation 4, it emerges that teaching experience shall be acquired while holding the particular post specified therein and the research experience can be taken into account if the person is engaged in research after obtaining post-graduate qualification and it has nothing to do with the holding of the post. One may be engaged as a research scholar and holds no teaching post. The research is hardly related to post though capacity for research is directly related to academic attainment. That has been taken care of. Teaching it indisputably related to the post because a higher post may entail greater responsibility for coaching in higher classes. This conclusion is reinforced by the language of general Regulation 4 which permits recognised research under the Indian Council of Medical Research which body may not have such hierarchical posts of Lecturer or Assistant Professor or Reader. These three designations are to be found in teaching institutions and not in research institutions. If it were, therefore, to be held that even while acquiring research experience one must hold the post of either Reader or Assistant Professor, it would ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 10 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 discourage many persons conducting research under the Indian Council of Medical Research. It is, therefore, not possible to agree with the generalisation made by the High Court that teaching/research experience to qualify for the post of Professor must be acquired while working as a Reader or Lecturer.
******
22. We would next examine one more item of experience claimed by Dr. Tandon in that he was post-doctoral teaching fellow, Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo from 1st October 1965 to 31st October 1966. Now, undoubtedly this was teaching experience in the same University where he was subsequently Assistant Professor. The grievance is that he was a Fellow and neither a Lecturer nor an Assistant Professor. What does 'Fellow' in the University connote ? A certificate has been produced, Annexure CA. (page 50, Vol. IV) by Dr. Tandon issued by Eugine I. Lippasch, Professor & Administrative Associate Chairman of the Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, dated 13th October 1966, in which it is stated that Dr. Tandon completed one year teaching fellowship in the Division of Cardiology of the Department of Medicine at the State University of New York at Buffalo and the Buffalo General Hospital on October 31, 1966. It is not very clear what is the equivalent of a Fellow in teaching Hospitals in India but Dr. Tandon has also claimed teaching experience from 5th April 1968 to 4th July 1969, being posted as post-doctoral research fellow, Department of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur. In this connection, Annexure R-2, produced by none other than some of the contesting respondents shows that during the tenure of Fellowship, Dr. Tandon was expected to take part in the teaching and research activities of the College though he would not be treated as part of the regular establishment of the College. Now, if the certificate produced by Dr. Tandon shows that Fellowship included teaching work, it would be unwise to doubt it. Even if 50% of the time spent in these two places is given credit, Dr. Tandon had certainly more than five years' teaching experience. The Court is not competent to work out figures with mathematical precision. It can broadly examine the question whether the requirement is satisfied or not. Therefore, he had the requisite teaching/research experience and the Commission was fully justified in ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 11 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 treating Dr. Tandon as having requisite teaching/research experience."
5.4 It is apparent that the respondents have failed to examine the matter in light of the observations made during the earlier round of litigation, particularly in their impugned order dated 03.08.2021. In that order, the respondents were specifically directed to verify the applicants' claims regarding their research experience. However, contrary to the language of the Recruitment Rules and disregarding the experience as Research Fellow/Senior Research Fellow under the aegis of the UGC, the respondents confined themselves solely to the aspect noted in para 22(II) of the impugned order, without properly assessing the claimed research experience. The said para 22 (II), reads as under:
(II). The experience claimed by the Applicant in the application form and in support of which he submitted the requisite certificate, in terms of the advertisement, was taken up for verification when it was found that the Applicant claimed experience for the period of (06/2013 to 06/2014), from Vidyasagar University, Midnapore-721102 (West Bengal), for research, while pursuing the M.Sc. Course. The work done as part of M.Sc. is academic in nature, as per prescribed Curriculum. Therefore, this cannot be considered to be experience towards fulfilment of the requirements as per Rules, a position upheld by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order dated 04.11.2020. Hence, the applicant has not fulfilled the statutory requirement of possessing two years experience in chemical analysis or research, as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. On scrutiny of his experience certificate submitted alongwith his representation, mentioned hereinabove, it was observed that out of the two experience certificate, one experience mentioned as Research Fellow for the period July, 2015 10 November, 2015 and other experience as Senior Research Fellow for the period 01.02.2018 to ongoing was not mentioned by him in his application ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 12 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 form submitted to Commission. It is noted that the experience for the period July, 2015 to November, 2015 claimed by the Applicant in his representation, subsequent to the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, has not been part of the application filed by him before the Commission and subsequent experience as Senior Research Fellow for the period 01.02.2018 onwards is of a period much after the closing date of the application and the same was also not the part of the application filed by the Applicant with the Commission, and, hence, cannot be taken into consideration in terms of the statutory mandates of the advertisement and instruction contained therein. Accordingly, the applicant is considered to not full fill the statutory requirement of recruitment rules in respect of two years' experience in chemical analysis or research in a Govt. department or autonomous or statutory body or recognized institution or university or public sector organisation or listed private sector organisation. Thus, there is no change of the status of the experience as claimed by the applicant. It is noted that after the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the O.A., the applicant has not produced any document in support of the fact that the rejection of his candidature by the Department requires re-consideration and therefore the change of the decision of the Department on this point."
5.5 The application form produced by the respondents themselves indicates experience from 10/2015 to 08/2017, contrary to the assertion in the impugned order that it was from July 2015 to November 2015. Additionally, the experience as Senior Research Fellow from November 2017 onwards should have been properly considered in light of the directions issued during the earlier proceedings.
5.6 The applicant had been consistently justifying his claim since 2020, including through a Contempt Petition. Therefore, the repeated rejection of his case solely on the ground of 'no vacancy,' without exploring the possibility of accommodation within permissible limits or in ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 13 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 subsequent vacancy cycles, cannot be sustained either in law or on facts. Furthermore, even in the absence of an immediate vacancy, an appointment letter ought to be issued based on the special circumstances of the case, as the rejection of the applicant's claim disregards the Recruitment Rules, which recognize experience as a Research Fellow. The applicant is not at fault; the error lies in the assessment conducted by the respondents. 5.7. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in the matter of Union of India & Anr. vs. Rizwan Zafar and anr (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the dispute in this O.A. revolves around whether the applicant's research experience as Junior and Senior Research Fellow at recognized institutions/universities qualifies as the mandatory two years of experience in chemical analysis or research required under the Recruitment Rules, 2015 for the post of Chemical Assistant rather than experience from a private listed company under the provisions of Companies Act.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1 In view of the above analysis, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the respondents.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.09 09:50:50 NI +05'30' 14 Item No. 70 O.A. No. 2121/2024 Court No. 4 6.2. The respondents are directed to verify the documents, including the experience certificates. Upon such verification, the respondents shall offer an appointment to the applicant if he fulfills all other eligibility criteria.
6.3. In case no vacancies are available as of the date, the applicant shall be accommodated against future vacancies or through the creation of supernumerary posts, as per administrative convenience. 6.4. This exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6.5. The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.01.09
09:50:50
NI +05'30'