Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mohammad Aslam vs Environment Forest And Climate Change on 22 April, 2025
1
OA No. 2847/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
(CIRCUIT SITTING AT NAINITAL)
O.A. No. 2847/2023
This the 22nd day of April, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Mohammad Aslam aged about 26 years (male)
Son of Sri Mohammad Yamin R/o Village Locality
Attabira G.P. Town-Attabira P.S. Attabira
District Bargarh State Orisha.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Shailendra Nautriyal)
Versus
1. Indian Council of Forestry Research and
Education through Director General P.O.
New Forest Dehradun-248006 (Uttarakhand)
2. Assistant Director General (Edu.&RB) Indian
Council of Forestry Research and Education
P.O. New Forest Dehradun-248006
(Uttarakhand).
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Vikas Pandey)
2
OA No. 2847/2023
O R D E R (Oral)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J) In the instant OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
"a. To set aside the online application (filled up for the post of Wood Scientist -B- 2113 Wood Science and Technology(WST)) status mentioned as rejected with the remark that application rejected due to the reason that GPA conversation Certificate was not uploaded at the time of online submission of application as per para 1 &9 (i) (i) 9
(xiv) & 10 (xx) of advertisement No. DSB/ICICFRE/2022.
His candidature for written exam and interview is cancelled.
b. To declare the final result of the applicant for the post of Wood Scientist -B- 2113 Wood Science and Technology (WST), in case, the applicant is declared successful in the final result, he may be offered appointment letter for the post mentioned above."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the candidature of the applicant, who belongs to EWS category, has been rejected with the remark that he has not uploaded the required GPA Conversion Certificate at the time of online submission of his application for the post of Wood Scientist-B-2113-Wood Science and Technology (WST) as per the prescribed norms. Though at the time of the interview, the conversion table of the institute as placed at Annexure A-4 (page 49) was duly shared with the respondents, irrespective of that, his candidature has not been cleared by the respondents. 3 OA No. 2847/2023
3. Learned counsel further submits that on 24.08.2023, this Tribunal directed the respondents to keep one post vacant till the outcome of the OA and accordingly, the respondents have kept one post vacant.
4. Opposing the grant of interim relief, learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant is not entitled to grant of relief sought in the present OA. He highlights the following paras of the counter affidavit:
"4. That the applicant is making false claim for his appointment as scientist-B; and mislead the Hon'ble Tribunal by distorting the facts and submitting information in pieces. In any recruitment advertisement, mere application or appearing in the examination does not mean that the applicant will be finally recruited. The final recruitment is actually based on the steps like receipt of complete application form along with requisite documents within the stipulated time limit document verification and performance of the candidate inexamination.
5. That the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education herein after referred to as ICFRE has issued advertisement no. DSB/ICFRE/2022 inviting online application for the recruitment of Scientist-B in total 13 disciplines as per terms and conditions mentioned in this advertisement. The applicant Mohammad Aslam applied for the post of Scientist-B (Wood Science and Technology discipline) under EWS category of reservation. The applicant appeared in the written examination and shortlisted for document verification and personal interview along with several other candidates in various categories. However, during document verification, it was found that the online application form of the applicant was 4 OA No. 2847/2023 incomplete because the applicant has not submitted the Grade Point Conversion certificate (GPA Conversion Certificate) with online application form which was mandatory as per the following clause-I(para) at page-4 of advertisement:
"In case the qualifying degree (M.Sc./B.E./B.Tech etc.) carries as Grade Point Average (GPA) system, instead of Percentage system, the duly certified conversion system prescribed by the educational institution must be submitted to ascertain requisite qualification of "First Class Degree" from the said educational institution."
6. That it is also important to mention that this GPA conversion certificate must be submitted along with online application and the space was also provided to submit the same. Same clauses of advertisement are applicable to all the candidates and most of the candidates have submitted the applicable documents including GPA conversion certificate along with online form. However, the applicant Mohammad Aslam has submitted incomplete application form and has not submitted GPA conversion certificate as evident from the blank space in his online application form. The document verification was conducted for the verification of already submitted documents in online application only. No additional documents regarding eligibility were accepted at the time of document verification and interview from any candidate. In this regard copy of the online application form of the applicant is enclosed and marked as CA 1 to this counter affidavit."
5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the decision dated 12.06.2006 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court passed in Dr. M. Vennila vs. Tamil Nadu Public, rendered in W.P. No.32895/2005. The relevant para of the same reads as under:-
"22. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports Pubjab, Chandigarh reported in AIR 1999 Punjab and 5 OA No. 2847/2023 Haryana 319 (FB). In the case before the Full Bench, the petitioner applied for admission to B.Tech. course. She claimed the benefit of reservation under sports category. She could not get the gradation certificate countersigned by the Director of Sports, Punjab, and so she was not considered for admission under reserved category for sports personnel. The argument advanced by the counsel representing the petitioner is that gradation certificate, based on her performance in the sports meet is only evidencing the existence of fact entitling her to the benefit of reservation and so the condition that gradation certificate should be sent along with the application form for admission is only a formality and candidate may produce the gradation certificate at the time of admission. In support of the contention, the petitioner relied on the observation made by a learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.11787 of 1995 decided on September 8, 1995 and the reasons given by the learned single Judge were approved by a Division Bench in L.P.A. filed against that judgment by the Punjabi University, Patiala. However, in Civil Writ Petition Nos.9211 of 1997 decided on August 26, 1997, and 12093 of 1997 decided on August 28, 1997, the other Division Benches took the view that application for admission should have been enclosed with a copy of the gradation certificate and that the candidate who produced the gradation certificate after the submission of the application is not entitled to the benefit of reservation as a sport person. In view of the divergent view, the matter was referred to Full Bench for consideration. It is seen from the factual details presented before the Full Bench that admission in the participating institutions of Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar has to be made as per the terms and conditions contained in the admission brochure/application form issued for the year 1997 . In the application form it was specifically stated that all particulars required must be filled in and attested photo copies of the certificates in support of the claim made by the candidates must be attached with the application form. Clause 3.8 makes it clear that the application complete in all respects should reach the Co-ordinator CET-1997, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar by 5.00 p.m. on June 25 , 1997. It is also specifically stated that the application not submitted in the prescribed application form or not filled by the candidate's own handwriting or not supported by attested photocopies of the documents or incomplete application in any other manner or received after the due date/time will be rejected. The above mentioned terms and conditions contained in the brochure have been issued by Notification 6 OA No. 2847/2023 of the Punjab Government dated 30th January, 1997. The terms and conditions regarding eligibility, reservation, allocation of seats, gradation certificate, and public declaration are binding on the candidates as well as the party issuing the said brochure for the period in question.In para 9, their Lordships by referring the earlier Full Bench decision in the case of Raj Singh vs. Maharshi Dayanand University (1994 (4) Recent Services Judgments, 289), disapproved the liberal construction of the terms and conditions of the brochure and specified the need for their strict adherence to avoid unnecessary prejudice to the candidates or the authority during the course of admission. In the same paragraph, by referring the Division Bench decision in the case of Madhvika Khurana (minor) vs. M.D. University in Civil Writ Petition No.15367 of 1991, their Lordships observed that the students seeking admission to the professional courses are even otherwise matured enough and supposed to understand the full implication of filling the admission form and compliance with the instructions contained in the brochure. In paragraph 10 their Lordships noticed another Full Bench decision (Rahul Prabhakar vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (1997 (3) RSJ 475:AIR 1998 Punj & Har.18), wherein it is stated that, "A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota vs. State of Punjab (1993 (4) Serv LR 673) had to consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to alteration.In Raj Singh vs. Maharshi Dayanand University (1994 (4) R.S.J. 289) another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law.Again Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur vs. Punjab University (1996 (1) RSJ 1LAIR 1996 Punj & Har 109) took the view that there has to be a cut off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed afterwards. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been followed in CWP.No.6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the information brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1997 have the 7 OA No. 2847/2023 force of law and have to be strictly complied with. No modification can be made by the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whenever a notification calling for applications, fixes date and time within which applications are to be received whether sent through post or by any other mode that time schedule has to be complied with in letter and spirit. If the application has not reached the co-ordinator or the competent authority as the case may be the same cannot be considered as having been filed in terms of the provisions contained in the prospectus or Information Brochure. Applications filed in violation of the terms of the brochure have only to be rejected."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Yogesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Ors. (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 548. The relevant para of the same reads as under:-
"8. This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the B.Ed. candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as B.Ed. qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals [CA No. 1726-28 of 2001] arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeal, we have already taken the view that B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the natures of training imparted for grant of certificate and degree are totally different and between them there is no parity 8 OA No. 2847/2023 whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from B.Ed. category and very few from TTC category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible. In our view, the division bench of the Delhi High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that B.Ed. candidates were rightly excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teachers. We make it clear that we are not called upon to express any opinion on any B.Ed. Candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements in the past and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was under challenge before the High Court and in this appeal."
7. On similar lines, learned counsel for the respondents also relies upon the following case laws:
a. Sandeep Kumar vs. The Union of India & Ors., decision rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court, (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6836 of 2015).
b. Faruk Ali Ahmed vs. The Food Corporation of India & Ors., decision rendered by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, (W.P.(C) No.1211/2017).
8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
9. ANALYSIS 9.1 The issue involved in the present case is whether non-furnishing of GPA Conversion Certificate uploaded 9 OA No. 2847/2023 along with the documents can be fatal to the claim of the applicant, or such an error is of minor or trivial nature which can be ignored?
9.2 It is not in dispute that the applicant, otherwise, fulfills the other eligibility criteria required for the said post as per the norms prescribed in the advertisement. As far as the essential qualification is concerned, the applicant has uploaded the mark-sheet of M.Sc. (WST) which has been issued by the university established under the aegis of the respondents themselves. It has also been stated that while uploading the mark-sheet, the applicant did not upload the back side of the marks which provides details regarding the said GPA conversion points.
9.3 It is also seen from the records that the applicant has also submitted all the required certificates and has also provided percentage/Grade(%) obtained in M.Sc. (WST) in numeric form, which is apparent from his application form annexed as Annexure A2. However, it has vehemently been urged on behalf of the respondents that the general conditions and 10 OA No. 2847/2023 instructions as prescribed in the advertisement are sacrosanct and binding upon all the candidates. 9.4 Sub-clause (xx) of Clause 10 as stipulated in the advertisement issued for the post in question, has also been brought to our notice, which reads as under:-
"(xx) The mere fact that a candidate has been called for written examination and/or interview does not imply that his/her candidature has been finally cleared byICFRE. The candidate must note that if his/her ineligibility is detected at any stage before or after the written examination and/or interview or if the conditions prescribed in the Rules and Instructions given in the advertisement or any other additional information/documents called for at any stage are not complied with within the time specified therein, his/her candidature will be liable for cancellation.
The ICFRE will not be responsible for cancellation of candidature on this account."
9.5 Sub-clause (i) of Clause 9 of the said advertisement has also been brought to our attention by the learned counsel for the respondents, which reads as under:
"i) Certificate regarding conversion of GPA into percentage, if applicable."
9.5 Dealing with the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, we observe that in said decision the rejection of the candidature was on account of the major error culled out as under:-
a. In the matter of Dr. M. Vennila (supra), the issue involved therein pertained to non-signing by the 11 OA No. 2847/2023 applicant at page 2 of the application, which is a factual error on the part of the applicant therein.
b. So far as the issue involved in the matter of Yogesh Kumar (supra) is concerned, the facts and circumstances of the case do not fit with those of the present case, wherein the issue involved was the candidates with qualification of TTC and B.Ed. are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates.
c. The issue involved in the matter of Faruk Ali Ahmed (supra) pertains to possession of the NOC which was not issued within a stipulated time.
Therefore, there can be no similarity to be drawn with the present case.
9.6 In Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"15. Recently this Bench in Divya vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023:INSC:900 = 2023 (13) Scale 730, while declining relief to candidates who acquired eligibility after the date mentioned in the notification carved out a narrow exception.There, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors., [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563, a case very similar to the facts of the present case, was noted.In Ajai Kumar Mishra (supra), Indira Banerjee, J. (as Her Ladyship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in para 9 stated as under:-12 OA No. 2847/2023
"9. It is true that whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or mis-representation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors." (emphasis supplied) The exception for trivial errors or omissions is for the reason that law does not concern itself with trifles. This principle is recognized in the legal maxim - De minimis non curat lex."
Xxxxxxxx
26. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No. 1271 of 2019 dated 22.08.2022 and direct the respondent-State to treat the appellant as a candidate who has "passed", in the selection process held under the advertisement No. 1 of 2017 issued by the Central Selection Board (Constable Recruitment), Patna with the date of birth as 18.12.1997. We further direct that if the appellant is otherwise not disqualified, the case of the appellant be considered and necessary appointment letter issued. We further direct that, in the event of there being no vacancy, appointment letter will still have to be issued on the special facts of this case. We make the said direction, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We further direct that the State will be at liberty in that event to adjust the vacancy in the next recruitment that they may resort to in the coming years. We notice from the written submissions of the State that 21,391 vacancies have been notified in Advertisement No.1 of 2023 and it is stated that the procedure for selection is ongoing. We place the said statement on record. We direct compliance to be made of the aforesaid direction within a period of four weeks from today."
(emphasized) 13 OA No. 2847/2023 9.7 On touchstone of decision rendered in Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra), the issue to be dealt with in the present case is whether the non-furnishing of the GPA Conversion Certificate, we observe that it is not fatal to the case of the applicant so as to reject his candidature. Having gone through the available records of the case, it is found that the applicant has furnished his percentage/grade(%),the respondents could have verified the correctness/genuineness of the same. More importantly, it is the undisputed fact that the applicant has obtained his M.Sc. (WST) mark-sheet from the recognized university which comes under the aegis of the respondents themselves. It is not so fatal mistake that the back side of the mark-sheet, which contains information regarding GPA conversion points, was not uploaded by the applicant as the percentage/grade(%) had already been mentioned in the application form in numeric form. For ready reference, the details given in application are re-produced as under:- 14 OA No. 2847/2023
Even otherwise, clause i), i.e., 'Certificate regarding conversion of GPA into percentage, if applicable', is not mandatory in nature, once the applicant has given full particulars of essential qualifications under RR's in application form itself.15 OA No. 2847/2023
10. CONCULSION 10.1 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the present OA, quashing and setting aside the rejection of the candidature of the applicant. Since the applicant has duly been selected as per his own merits, the respondents are directed to issue offer of appointment to him on the post of Wood Scientist-B in the EWS category. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Needless to mention that the applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority and other notional benefits, however, actual benefits shall flow thereto from the date of his joining to the said post.
10.2 Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg) Member(A) Member(J) /yy/