Supreme Court of India
Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs Dr. Bhanumati Purushottam Rathod & Ors on 21 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3719, 1997 AIR SCW 2512, 1997 LAB. I. C. 2639, 1997 (2) SERVLJ 240 SC, (1997) 5 JT 180 (SC), 1997 (4) SCALE 13, 1997 (5) SCC 128, (1997) 2 SERVLJ 240, 1997 (5) JT 180, 1997 ALL CJ 2 1147, (1997) 3 SCR 878 (SC), (1997) 4 SERVLR 256, (1997) 2 LAB LN 1016, (1997) 2 MAD LJ 126, (1997) 3 SCT 264, (1997) 4 SUPREME 586, (1997) 4 SCALE 13, (1997) 2 CURLR 24, 1997 SCC (L&S) 1131
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, D.P. Wadhwa
PETITIONER: MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. RESPONDENT: DR. BHANUMATI PURUSHOTTAM RATHOD & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Though notice was served on the contesting respondent, he is not appearing either in person or through counsel.
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The admitted position is that for appointment to the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent, qualification prescribed is of post graduation in Medicine and 15 years' experience. Admittedly, the respondent did not possess 15 years' experience. He had only 14 years' experience. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated October 24, 1996 in O.A. No. 954/97 has held that the condition of 15 years experience is vague and, therefore, the respondent was wrongly excluded from the zone of consideration without calling for the interview. Since the selection without calling for the interview. Since the selection had already taken place, the Tribunal has granted exemplary costs and compensation to the respondent. We find that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is wholly and unwarranted. The only question the Tribunal was required to consider was whether the respondent fulfilled the qualifications prescribed for the post. In view of the admitted position that 15 years' experience is one of the qualifications for selection and since the respondent did not possess the same, the respondent was rightly not called for interview. the Tribunal, therefore, not justified in holding that the respondent was wrongfully excluded from being called for interview for selection. It is not a case of wrongful rejection, but of rejection in accordance with the rules. Even otherwise also, the Tribunal could not award any damages as it is beyond its jurisdiction to grant relief by way of damages.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal stands set aside. No costs.