Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anjali Yadav D/O Jagroop Singh vs Union Public Service Commission on 18 April, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.339 of 2012 Order reserved on : 30th March, 2012 Pronounced on : 18th April, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE S. C. SHARMA, ACTING CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Anjali Yadav D/o Jagroop Singh, R/o 117A, New Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana. Applicant ( By Shri Gagan Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union Public Service Commission, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi, through its Chairman. 2. Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs through its Secretary, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001. Respondents ( By Shri R. V. Sinha, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice S. C. Sharma, Acting Chairman:
Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs:
(a) allow the Original Application;
(b) Issue an appropriate order and direction, quashing condition No.b of the portion relating to documents/ certificates in Instructions and Additional Information to Candidates for Recruitment by Selection of Advertisement No.16 of 2011 issued by U.P.S.C. inviting the applications for recruitment by selection to various posts including vacancies against Item No.13 insofar as it stipulates that Candidates should note that they should attach with their applications attested/self certified copies of Degree/Diploma certificate along with mark sheets pertaining to all the academic years as proof of educational qualification claimed and that in the absence of Degree/Diploma certificate, provisional certificate along with mark sheets pertaining to all the academic years will be accepted;
In the alternative
(c) Allow this application and issue an appropriate order and direction thereby directing the U.P.S.C. to accept the provisional certificate of the applicant with respect to M.Sc. (Applied Psychology) treating her to be eligible as on 15.9.2011 and treating the date for submission of provisional certificate as having extended till 4.1.2011 or the date of interview or any date prior to her selection;
(d) Issue an appropriate order and direction thereby quashing the letter dated 17.1.2011 issued by U.P.S.C. bearing letter No.F.1/199(39)/2011-R.II/Roll no.39 whereby the candidature of the applicant has been illegally rejected;
(e) Issue an appropriate order and direction thereby directing the U.P.S.C. to treat the applicant as eligible in all respects and to accept her application form against vacancy of Item No.13 at Advertisement No.16 of 2011 and call for interview to be held for the said vacancy/post;
(f) Issue an appropriate order and direction, directing the U.P.S.C. to disclose the names and details of candidates who have been selected for having been called for interview for vacancies/posts advertised at Item No.13, Advertisement No.16 of 2011 issued by U.P.S.C.;
(g) Issue an appropriate order and direction, directing the U.P.S.C. to disclose the instances and provisions where any clause similar to condition No.b of the portion relating to documents/certificates in Instructions and Additional Information to Candidates for Recruitment by Selection of Advertisement No.16 of 2011 issued by U.P.S.C., has been relaxed;
(h) To grant any other appropriate relief as per the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Pleadings of the parties, in brief, are as follows:
It has been alleged by the applicant that she did her B.Sc. (3 years degree course) from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak in the year 2004, and thereafter completed her Masters of Science in the field of Forensic Science (2 years course) from Bundelkhand University, and passed the examination of 2006 in first division. The applicant also completed one years Post Graduate course in Forensic Psychology with effect from January 2007 to December 2007 from National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (for short, NIMHANS), Bangalore, which was the first batch of the newly introduced course. In the year 2008, the applicant was granted Junior Research Fellowship by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Directorate of Forensic Sciences for doing her Ph.D course in Forensic Sciences, and in Ph.D the applicant opted for Forensic Psychology. The applicant took admission in Ph.D in Gujarat Forensic Science University, Gandhi Nagar in the year 2009. During continuance of her studies of Ph.D., the applicant also took admission in M.Sc. (Psychology) from Annamalai University (distance education) (2 years course) and took the first year examination in December 2009, the second year examination in the year 2011, result whereof was awaited since then. In the Employment News of 27th August to 2nd September, 2011, UPSC, the 1st respondent, advertised various posts by way of advertisement No.16 of 2011, for various vacancies. As per Item No.13, vacancies for the post of 3 Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II (Lie Detector) in Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Central Bureau of Investigation, Ministry of Home Affairs, were advertised. It is pleaded that the applicant fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the advertisement for Item No.13; her date of birth was 08.08.1983 and she was 28 years of age as on 15.09.2011. In pursuance of the advertisement, the applicant applied for the post under Item No.13 on 14.09.2011 along with all requisite documents. Prior to applying for the said vacancy, the applicant wrote a letter to the Annamalai University, from where she was pursuing Masters Degree in Psychology by way of distance learning, requesting the University to declare her result in view of the fact that the last date of eligibility was 15.09.2011, which was also the last date for submission of application form for the said vacancy. In pursuance of the request of the applicant, the University issued her result in a sealed cover addressed to UPSC, on 09.09.2011. In this manner, the applicant for the vacancy at Item No.13, annexed all her relevant documents along with the confidential marks sheet issued by the University. Subsequently, the University issued marks sheet and provisional certificate on 29.09.2011 which would clearly indicate that the applicant had passed M.Sc. (Applied Psychology) by the last date of submission of the application form, and she was fulfilling all the requisite qualifications, and there was no ambiguity in the earlier marks sheet annexed along with the application form and the marks sheet submitted later on. It is averred that the final marks sheet is equivalent to provisional certificate and degree, as the same is issued just after declaration of result, while provisional certificate is issued at a later point of time and degree is issued at the time of convocation. No intimation was received by the applicant regarding the date and time of interview. Hence, a letter was given by hand at the UPSC counter on 04.01.2012, and the respondent UPSC informed the applicant on 17.01.2012 that her candidature stood rejected on the ground that copies of certificates/marks sheets are not accepted after the closing date and that subsequent mark sheets do not commensurate with the mark sheet submitted earlier along with the application form. It is alleged that the respondent UPSC illegally cancelled the candidature of the applicant, hence the OA.
3. The respondent No.1 UPSC has contested the case and filed its counter reply. It has been alleged in the counter reply that UPSC is a constitutional body established under Articles 315 to 323 of the Constitution of India, and that under Article 320 it has been assigned various functions and duties including recruitment by selection through interview, and is discharging its constitutional obligations. It has been admitted by the respondent No.1 that an advertisement was issued in the Employment News for recruitment to three posts of Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Lie Detector) in CFSL, CBI, Ministry of Home Affairs, in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay Rs.5400/-. The age limit was 35 years as on the normal closing date. Essential qualification for the post was Masters Degree in Criminology or Psychology from a recognized university or equivalent, and three years experience in Applied Psychology or Criminology/Crime Investigation. The desirable qualification was of a candidate having possessed Doctorate Degree relevant to the essential qualification from a recognized university or equivalent. Sixty-four applications were received against the advertisement, out of which eight candidates were found eligible and were summoned for interview for the post to be held on 24.02.2012 in the Commission. The applicant was not summoned for the interview as her application was rejected under the category or Incomplete Applications for not submitting the relevant certificate of Masters Degree along with her application form, and she also had not submitted the provisional certificate and copies of marks sheets of all academic years in the absence of degree certificate. Applications of five other candidates were also rejected under the category of Incomplete Applications for not submitting the relevant certificate of Masters degree along with their application forms. Since the closing date for submitting applications was 15.09.2011, the applicant requested the Annamalai University, from where she was pursuing her degree in Psychology, to declare her result. In pursuance of her request, the University issued the result of the applicant in a sealed cover on 09.09.2011 only for the purpose of submission to UPSC along with the application for the post. It is a fact that the applicant enclosed all the relevant documents, including the confidential marks sheet issued by the Annamalai University, and thereafter, it has also been alleged that the University sent marks sheet and provisional certificate on 29.09.2011 to the applicant. All these facts would establish that the applicant had passed Masters in Applied Psychology on 29.09.2011. In response to the letter of the applicant, it was informed by the UPSC that her candidature stood rejected on the ground that copies of certificates and marks sheets are not accepted after the closing date, and that the subsequent marks sheet was not commensurate with the marks sheet submitted by her earlier along with the application form. It has also been alleged by the applicant that her candidature was rejected arbitrarily, and that a candidate is treated as having passed a particular course immediately on declaration of result by the concerned University, and thus she had completed her Masters Degree in Applied Psychology on 09.09.2011, i.e., prior to 15.09.2011. The respondent has alleged that as per the detailed instructions issued to the candidates along with the advertisement, the candidates are required to submit self-attested copies of degree/diploma certificate along with the marks statement pertaining to all academic years as proof of educational qualifications claimed. In the absence of degree/diploma certificate, provisional certificate along with marks sheet pertaining to all the academic years are accepted. The applicant along with her application form had submitted only a confidential marks sheet issued by the concerned University, which did not indicate whether the marks mentioned therein were for the first year or second year of the course of M.Sc. (Applied Psychology) undergone by her. Subsequently, the applicant submitted the provisional certificate and the marks sheet for both academic years on 03.01.2012 to the Commission, but the same were not accepted having been submitted after the last date of receiving the application forms, and hence the Commission was justified in rejecting the candidature of the applicant. That the OA lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. In response to the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1, the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, wherein the applicant has reiterated the facts which have already been alleged in the OA. It will also be material to mention that the Tribunal, as an interim measure, passed an order on 17.02.2012 in favour of the applicant. It was ordered, Accordingly, the respondent No.1 i.e. the UPSC, is directed to allow the applicant to appear provisionally in the interview subject to the final outcome in the OA. Hence, on the strength of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the applicant participated in the interview, and now the result is to be declared. The applicant was provisionally permitted to participate in the interview subject to the ultimate outcome of the OA.
5. We have heard Shri Gagan Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri R. V. Sinha, Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents, and perused the entire facts of the case. The matter relates to Item No.13 of the Employment News of 27th August 2nd September, 2011 in the advertisement issued by the respondent UPSC. The dispute is regarding Item No.13. The applicant claims to be fulfilling the requisite qualifications for the post. She submitted the application for the post appearing at Item No.13. In view of Item No.13, three posts of Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Lie Detector) were required to be filled in CFSL, CBI, Ministry of Home Affairs. It has been provided in the notification that the candidates must possess Masters Degree in Criminology or Psychology from a recognized University or equivalent, and should have three years experience in Applied Psychology or Criminology/Crime Investigation. It has been alleged by the applicant that she was pursuing her studies for Masters in Applied Psychology and she appeared in the examination of the subject in the month of May, 2011.
6. From perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that most of the facts have been admitted by the respondents, and a very narrow controversy is involved regarding possessing the requisite qualification by the applicant on the closing date of the application forms on 15.09.2011. As per notification for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade-II (Lie Detector) in CFSL, CBI, the candidates were required to possess Masters degree in Criminology or Psychology from a recognized university or equivalent, and to have three years experience in Applied Psychology or Criminology/Crime Investigation, with Doctorate degree relevant to the essential qualification from a recognized university or equivalent, as desirable qualification. It has been alleged by the applicant that in the year 2008, she was pursuing her studies for Ph.D course in Forensic Sciences, and in Ph.D the applicant opted for Forensic Psychology, and that during her Ph.D, the applicant took admission in M.Sc. (Psychology) from Annamalai University (distance education 2 years course) and took the first year examination in the December, 2009, and the second year examination in May, 2011. At the time of submission of the application form, the result was awaited. It has also been alleged by the applicant in the OA that prior to applying for the said vacancy, she wrote a letter to Annamalai University, from where she was pursuing Masters degree in Psychology by way of distance learning, requesting the University to declare her result in view of the fact that the last date of eligibility was 15.09.2011, which was also the last date for submission of the application form for the said vacancy. In pursuance of the request of the applicant, the University in a sealed cover addressed to UPSC issued a marks sheet of the applicant on 09.09.2011. This marks sheet was to be submitted to the UPSC by the applicant, and the applicant annexed the marks sheet in a sealed envelope as sent by the Annamalai University along with the application form for the post against item No.13. Subsequently, marks sheet and provisional certificate were issued by the University on 29.09.2011. From all these facts it was evident that the applicant had passed M.Sc. (Applied Psychology) on the closing date of submission of the application form. After receipt of the marks sheet from the University on 29.09.2011 and provisional certificate, the same were annexed later on. When no information was given by the respondent regarding the interview for the post against item No.13, then an application was submitted by the applicant along with copies of certificate/marks sheet, but the impugned order was passed on 17.01.2012 that the marks sheet now submitted by the applicant did not commensurate to the marks sheet submitted by her earlier along with the application form. It has also been stated in the impugned order that as per the existing policy of the Commission, copies of certificates/marks sheets must be submitted prior to the closing date of the application forms, and that the marks sheet of the applicant was received subsequently, hence her candidature was rejected.
7. In the counter reply, it has been alleged by the respondent that the applicant along with her application form had submitted only a confidential marks sheet issued by the concerned University, which did not indicate whether marks mentioned therein were for the first year or second year of the course of M.Sc. (Applied Psychology) undergone by her. Subsequently, the applicant submitted the provisional certificate and the marks sheet for both the academic years on 03.01.2012 to the Commission, but as these documents were submitted by her after the closing date for submission of the application forms, i.e., 15.09.2011, the same were not accepted as per the policy of the Commission. It has also been alleged that the marks sheet submitted subsequently was also not commensurate with the marks sheet submitted earlier along with the application form, and that prior to the last date of submission of application form, result of the applicant had not been declared as the same was declared on 29.09.2011, and it cannot be said that the applicant was possessing Masters degree in Applied Psychology, requisite qualification on the closing date of receipt of application forms. From perusal of the counter reply of the respondent, it is evident that it is an admitted fact that along with the application form which was submitted prior to the closing date for receipt thereof, a sealed envelope containing the confidential marks sheet was received, but the respondent has disputed that the result of the applicant was not declared prior to the closing date, i.e., 15.09.2011, and was rather declared on 29.09.2011, and only from the date of declaration of the result, it can be inferred that the concerned candidate is possessing the requisite qualification. Annexure A-10 is the copy of the confidential mark list issued by the Annamalai University on 09.09.2011. Secondly, it has also been alleged by the respondent that the marks sheet submitted later on by the applicant was not commensurate with the earlier marks sheet, but it has not been stated as to what is the discrepancy, and now the matter is concerned only as regards declaration of the result. However, rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the applicant and it has been alleged in the rejoinder that this contention of the respondent No.1 is wrong that incomplete application was submitted, and that the applicant did not submit the marks sheet of both the academic years pertaining to her qualification. Marks sheets of both academic years of M.Sc. (Applied Psychology) were submitted by the applicant and the stand of the respondent No.1 is contradictory, and was never alleged earlier, and the application form was not rejected earlier to the impugned order. It has also been disputed that the contention of the respondent is also not justified that the marks shown in the earlier marks sheet were not commensurate with the subsequently submitted marks sheet. It was specifically mentioned in the confidential marks sheet that how much marks were obtained by the applicant for the first and second years. We have perused the marks sheet Annexure A-10. Although it has not been specifically mentioned in the said marks sheet that how much marks were obtained in the first year and how much in the second year, but it has been mentioned that the applicant has passed the course in first class.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the applicant was not possessing the requisite qualification on the closing date of the submission of application forms. It has also been alleged that a request was made by the applicant to the Annamalai University from where she was pursuing the Masters degree in Psychology, to declare her result, and in pursuance of her request, the University issued the result of the applicant in a sealed cover on 09.09.2011 only for the purpose of submission to the UPSC along with the application for the post, and subsequently marks sheet as well as the provisional certificate were submitted after declaration of the result, on 03.01.2012, but as on the closing date the applicant was not possessing the requisite qualification, her candidature was rejected.
9. Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the rules of the Annamalai University, the applicant wrote a letter to the University from where she was pursuing her Masters degree in Psychology, to declare her result in view of the fact that the last date of eligibility was 15.09.2011, and in pursuance of this request, the University issued the result of the applicant in a sealed cover addressed to UPSC on 09.09.2011 only for the purpose of submission to the UPSC along with the application form. It is an admitted fact that the application form was submitted prior to the closing date, and the application was containing the sealed envelope of the Annamalai University containing the confidential marks sheet. It is also a fact that according to the marks sheet, the applicant has been declared passed in first division. Firstly, it will be material to see whether the result by issuing the marks sheet was declared only relating to the applicant as an exception, or it was a general rule. It is undisputed fact that the result of M.Sc. (Psychology) was declared on 29.09.2011. As stated in the OA, as also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant moved to the Annamalai University for declaring her result as per rules, and in this connection the learned counsel produced the bye-laws of the University. It has been provided in para 12 under General Information, Marklists-Confidential: Candidates who have taken their final year exams can apply in the prescribed form for Confidential Marklist before the publication of the results, for employment and educational purposes. However, the marklists will be sent only to the Head of the Institution concerned. Hence, from perusal of these bye-laws of the University it is evident that there is provision existing that a candidate may apply for issuing confidential mark-list for the purpose of employment, as well as educational purpose. In the present case, under this rule, the applicant submitted an application to the University for declaring her result and issuing marks sheet in the confidential envelope, as provided, and the University in pursuance of the application and as per rules, issued confidential mark-list addressed to UPSC, which fact has not been disputed by the respondent. The marks sheet was issued on 09.09.2011. It has thus been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the purpose of the applicant, the result was declared on 09.09.2011 when the marks sheet in a confidential envelope was issued addressed to the UPSC. Under these circumstances, whether the result is to be deemed to have been declared even for the purpose of the applicant on 29.09.2011, or on 09.09.2011, is to be seen. Although on the face of it, it appears justified that the result is to be deemed to have been declared when it is published on the notice board or on the website of the concerned university, but some times facts may be stranger than fiction, and in the present case the same thing appears to have happened. There is a provision in the bye-laws of the University that a candidate may apply for issuing confidential mark-list for the purpose of employment or for the purpose of education, and accordingly the University issued mark-list on 09.09.2011 and the same was annexed with the application form by the applicant. Hence, it can be possible that the result is to be deemed to be declared for the applicant on 09.09.2011.
10. We have tried to consult various dictionaries in order to draw the inference as to what would be the meaning of the word declaration or declare. The term Declaration, as defined in Law Lexicon-cum-Digest (1990 edition), is to mean dying; of a legal status; policy; slum areas; of a trust vs Settlement;. In Concise Oxford Dictionary (tenth edition), declaration has been defined as a formal or explicit statement or announcement or to make clearly known. In Blacks Law Dictionary (fifth edition), the expression Declare has been defined to mean To make known, manifest, or clear. To signify, to show in any manner either by words or acts. To publish; to utter; to announce clearly some opinion or resolution. In The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of the English Language (1987 edition), the term declare has been defined as to make known explicitly or formally, announce. Hence, in most of the dictionaries the word declare or declaration has been defined as to announce or formally or explicitly announce or to make known. It has not been defined that the declaration of the result will be when it has been declared for all the students. For the applicant, it can be presumed that the result was declared on 09.09.2011 when her marks sheet was issued in a confidential envelope addressed to UPSC. The declaration has not been defined in such a manner so as to be detrimental to the interest of the applicant, and moreover, as we have stated above, in the bye-laws of the University there is provision that the marks sheet in confidential envelope can be issued, addressed to the institution concerned for employment or educational purposes. As in the present case the marks sheet was required for purpose of submitting to UPSC, hence the marks sheet was addressed to UPSC, and the mark-list remained in a sealed envelope. Under these circumstances, it can well be presumed that the result can be said to have been declared for the applicant on 09.09.2011.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779 Dolly Chhanda v Chairman, JEE & others. Relevant para 7 of the judgment, reads as follows:
7. The general rule is that while apply-ing for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose ei-ther in the admission brochure or in appli-cation form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of res-ervation or weightage etc. necessary certifi-cates have to be produced. These are docu-ments in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of" marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejec-tion of candidature. The learned counsel also cited the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (1980) 2 SCC 752 Charles K. Skaria & others v Dr. C. Mathew & others. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
This composite statement cannot be read formalistic fashion. Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date, what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. Hence, in view of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, it is essential that one must have to be in possession of the degree/diploma before the given date, and hence, the date of acquiring the essential qualification before the last date of application form makes sense. The Honble Supreme Court further held that the qualification was acquired before the relevant date, but the proof thereof was adduced later on but before the selection, and this is to be accepted. In the present case, the applicant submitted the marks sheet of M.Sc. (Applied Psychology) in a confidential envelope as per rules prior to the closing date, and it can be presumed that on the last date of submission of the application form, the applicant was possessing the requisite qualification. In the present case, the proof of the academic qualification was submitted prior to the closing date. From all these circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn is that on the last date of submission of the application form, the applicant was possessing the requisite qualification required for the post against item No.13 of the advertisement in question, and the applicant was eligible to participate in the interview. As we have also stated above, as per interim order of this Tribunal, the applicant has already participated in the interview for the post. Now the question is of declaration of the result, and it was ordered that the result will be subject to the ultimate outcome of the OA, and we are of the opinion that the applicant was possessing requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application forms, hence the respondents were not justified in cancelling her candidature.
12. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the applicant has proved that she was possessing the requisite qualification on the closing date of submission of the application forms, i.e., 15.09.2011. She obtained a confidential mark-list from the concerned University in a sealed cover, as is the rule of the University, and the confidential envelope was annexed with the application form prior to the closing date. The impugned order was illegally passed by the respondents that the applicant was not possessing the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of the application form. It has also been alleged by the respondents that the marks shown in the earlier marks-sheet were not commensurate with the subsequently submitted marks-sheet, but nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents as to what would be the discrepancy. The applicant has proved her case and the OA deserves to be allowed.
13. The OA is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.01.2012 is quashed and it is held that the applicant was possessing the requisite qualification for the post against item No.13 of the advertisement in the Employment News. The applicant has already participated in the interview and hence, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the applicant within a period of fifteen days of communication of this order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( S. C. Sharma )
Member (A) Acting Chairman
/as/