Delhi High Court
Abhijit Ghosh vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 August, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Siddharth Mridul
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.08.2012
+ W.P.(C) 4769/2012
ABHIJIT GHOSH ... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Vinay Sabharwal.
For the Respondents : Mr Sumeet Pushkarna for UOI.
Ms Aditi Gupta for Mr Naresh Kaushik for UPSC.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2012 passed in OA No.69/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of Deputy Drugs Controller (India) in the Central Drugs Standardization Control Organization WP(C) No.4769/2012 Page 1 of 1 under the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the degree of Master's in Biomedical Engineering be taken as equivalent to the degree of Master's in Pharmacy/Pharmacology and to direct the respondent to treat the said two degrees accordingly.
2. These prayers had arisen in the context of the petitioner not being considered for the post of Deputy Drugs Controller on the ground that he did not submit a certificate of equivalence with regard to his degree of Master's in Biomedical Engineering being equivalent to a Master's degree in Pharmacy/Pharmacology.
3. The post of Deputy Drugs Controller was advertised by the UPSC which, inter alia, carried the following essential qualifications:-
"QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL: A. Educational:
Master's Degree in Chemistry/Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Bio- Chemistry/Pharmacy/Pharmacology of a recognized University or equivalent.
B. EXPERIENCE: Twelve years experience in dealing with problems connected with drug standardization and control of drug standards in the manufacture of testing of drugs.
DESIRABLE: Experience of administration of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules thereafter and/or of manufacture and testing of drugs and/or dealing with problems connected with Import and Export of drugs."WP(C) No.4769/2012 Page 2 of 2
4. The same advertisement also carried the following specific instructions:-
"MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFCAITONS: All applicants must fulfill the essential requirements of the post and other conditions stipulated in the advertisement. They are advised to satisfy themselves before applying that they possess at least the essential qualifications laid down for various posts. No enquiry asking for advice as to be eligibility will be entertained.
NOTE-I: The prescribed essential qualifications are the minimum and the mere possession of the same does not entitle candidates to be called for interview.
NOTE-II: Where the number of applications received in response to an advertisement is large and it will not be convenient or possible for the Commission to interview all the candidates, the Commission at their discretion may restrict the number of candidates, to a reasonable limit by any or more of the following methods:
(a) On the basis of either qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement; or
(b) ON the basis of experience in the relevant field; or
(c) By counting experience before or after the acquisition of essential qualifications; or
(d) By holding a screening test.
The candidate should, therefore, mention all the qualifications and experience in the relevant field over and above the minimum qualifications and should attach attested/self certified copies of the Certificates in support thereof. NOTE-III: In regard to Educational Qualifications, the mark sheet in lieu of Educational Certificates will not be accepted by the Commission.
NOTE-IV: The provisional claim whatsoever in regard to eligibility to the post will not be accepted by the Commission."
WP(C) No.4769/2012 Page 3 of 3 Importantly, paragraph 7 of the said advertisement reads as under:-
"7. CERTIFICATE TO BE ATTACHED Candidates should note that they should attach with their applications attested/self certified copies of the following documents:
(i) Matriculation or equivalent certificate in support of their declaration of age.
(ii) Degree or Diploma Certificate or other certificates in support of their educational qualifications.
(iii) If the qualification possessed by the candidate is equivalent, then the authority (with number and date) under which is has been so treated must be indicated."
(underlining added)
5. Upon going through the said essential features of the said advertisement it is clear that a person who responded to the said advertisement would be required to present the following educational qualifications:- Master's Degree in Chemistry/ Pharmaceutical Chemistry/ Bio-Chemistry/ Pharmacy/ Pharmacology of a recognized University "or equivalent". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had a Master's degree in Biomedical Engineering from Jadhavpur University which, admittedly, is a recognized University. According to the petitioner this Master's degree in Biomedical Engineering is equivalent to a Master's degree in Pharmacy/Pharmacology. Unfortunately for the petitioner WP(C) No.4769/2012 Page 4 of 4 the conditions stipulated in paragraph 7(iii) of the said advertisement had not been complied with by him. Paragraph 7(iii) of the said advertisement made it absolutely clear that if the qualification possessed by the candidate was equivalent, then the authority along with the number and date under which it has been so treated must be indicated. This had not been done by the petitioner inasmuch as he had not attached any certificate indicating as to how the Master's degree in Biomedical Engineering would be equivalent to a Master's degree in Pharmacy/Pharmacology.
6. The Tribunal has examined the submissions made by the petitioner in detail and has also examined certain decisions of courts. Importantly the Tribunal has noted that the petitioner did not challenge the advertisement. As a result the petitioner had to comply with all the stipulations in the advertisement before he could claim consideration by the UPSC. As pointed out above, unfortunately for the petitioner he had not complied with the stipulation indicated in paragraph 7(iii) of the said advertisement inasmuch as he did not submit any certificate of equivalence along with his application form. Even today the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any such certificate.
WP(C) No.4769/2012 Page 5 of 5
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not comply with the clear instructions and stipulations contained in the said advertisement, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim consideration for the said post. The Tribunal has correctly decided the OA filed by the petitioner. There is no reason for us to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J AUGUST 24, 2012 mk WP(C) No.4769/2012 Page 6 of 6