Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pankaj Choudhary vs Union Public Service Commission (Upsc) on 8 September, 2022
1
O.A. No. 2438/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 2438/2022
This Thursday the 08th day of September, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Pankaj Choudhary
Group A
S/o Harmukat Singh
Aged 29 years
R/o Gurudwara Punjabi Mohalla
Bharatpur- 321602
Rajasthan
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Mr. Ashim Shridhar, Ms. Niyati and Mr.
Vijay Singh )
Versus
Union of India
Union Public Service Commission
Through Secretary
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi - 110069
...Respondent
(By Advocates: Mr. R. V. Sinha and Ms. Chakshu Gupta )
2
O.A. No. 2438/2022
ORDER (ORAL)
Per: Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More, Chairman Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking direction to the respondent to permit him to submit his Detailed Application Form(DAF) or in the alternative use the information as already uploaded with the respondent as way of DAF filed for CSE(Main) and secondly issue admit card to appear for Indian Forest Service(Main) Examination, 2022 to be held on 20.11.2022.
3. The Annexure A-1 is the instructions to the candidates in Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination, 2022. Under these instructions, the date of starting of filing online application is 08.08.2022 and date of closure for filing applications is 18.08.2022. Admittedly, the applicant has not filed any application online before the last date i.e. 18.08.2022.
4. We are unable to accede to the request of the learned counsel of the applicant in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar vs Saifudaullah Khan 3 O.A. No. 2438/2022 (2011) 12 SCC 85 and especially observation made therein in paras 29 and 32, which read as follows:
"29. We have considered the entire matter in detail. In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained. There can not be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of the advertisement unless such a power is specifically reserved. Such a power could be reserved in the relevant Statutory Rules. Even if power of relaxation is provided in the rules, it must still be mentioned in the advertisement. In the absence of such power in the Rules, it could still be provided in the advertisement. However, the power of relaxation, if exercised has to be given due publicity. This would be necessary to ensure that those candidates who become eligible due to the relaxation, are afforded an equal opportunity to apply and compete. Relaxation of any condition in advertisement without due publication would be contrary to the mandate of quality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
32. In the face of such conclusions, we have little hesitation in concluding that the conclusion recorded by the High Court is contrary to the facts and materials on the record. It is settled law that there can be no relaxation in the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement unless the power of relaxation is duly reserved in the relevant rules and/or in the advertisement. Even if there is a power of relaxation in the rules, the same would still have to be specifically indicated in the advertisement. In the present case, no such rule has been brought to our notice. In such circumstances, the High Court could not have issued the impugned direction to consider the claim of respondent No.1 on the basis of identity card submitted after the selection process was over, with the publication of the select list."4 O.A. No. 2438/2022
5. In the light of the above, we find no merit in the present application and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice Ranjit Vasantrao More)
Member (A) Chairman
/as/gm/