Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shekhar vs State Of Maharashtra . on 3 March, 2014
tS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.3181 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.27421 OF 2012)
SHEKHAR .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The present controversy pertains to the eligibility of the
appellant’s appointment by direct recruitment, to the post of Deputy
Director/Joint Director, in the Maharashtra Mining Service Group-A, of the
Directorate of Geology and Mining. One post of Deputy Director, from the
above service, was advertised by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) on 23.04.2010. The
qualifications for eligibility were indicated in para 5 thereof. Para 5 of
the advertisement dated 23.04.2010 is being extracted hereinbelow:
"5. Qualification : Candidates must possess -
5.1. A Post-Graduate Degree in at least 2nd Class in Geology or
Applied Geology or any other qualification declared by
Government to be equivalent thereto. AND THEREAFTER
5.2 Practical experience of geological filed work and
mineral administration work in a responsible position for a
period of not less than Eight Years."
A few days thereafter, two posts of Joint Director, from the above service,
were likewise advertised by the Commission on 30.04.2010. The
qualifications for the post of Joint Director were indicated in paragraph 5
of the advertisement dated 30.04.2010 as under:
"5. Qualification : Candidates must possess -
5.1. A Post-Graduate Degree in at least 2nd Class in Geology
or Applied Geology or any other qualification declared by
Government to be equivalent thereto. AND THEREAFTER
5.2. Practical experience of geological filed work and
mineral administration work in a responsible position for a
period of not less than 10 years."
A large number of candidates responded to the above two
advertisements. Therefore, to raise the bar with a view to short list the
candidates, the Commission revised upwards the qualifications prescribed.
This upwards revision, will be referred to as the short listing criterion,
hereinafter. The short listing criterion adopted by the Commission, has
been depicted in the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’)
dated 19.07.2012. The same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"A Post Graduate Degree in second class in Geology or
Applied Geology and thereafter geological field work or mineral
administration work in responsible capacity for a period of 17
years, out of which 9 years’ of experience should be Senior
Geologist."
The aforesaid short listing criterion was a matter of internal
proceedings of the Commission. None of the candidates were asked to
indicate, further details of the educational qualifications possessed by
them, or explicit details of their experience. It is in the above view of
the matter, that the appellant before this Court, did not express anything
beyond what he had disclosed while making the original application, wherein
he had merely indicated, that he possessed the educational qualifidations
depicted in the two advertisements, referred to above, as also the working
experience depicted in the advertisements. So far as the working
experience is concerned, the appellant had mentioned that he possessed the
prescribed experience for the duration mentioned, as he had worked for the
said period against the posts of "Junior Geologist to Deputy Director". The
experience indicated by the applicant/appellant, completely justified the
qualifications depicted in the two advertisements (referred to above). The
candidature of the appellant, was rejected on the premise, that the
qualifications disclosed by him did not satisfy the short listing
criterion.
It is not a matter of dispute between the rival parties, that
as a matter of fact, the appellant herein possessed the qualifications,
which were revised for short listing the candidates. His non-consideration
was merely on account of the fact, that his original application did not
disclose the details of the experience possessed by him. In the affidavit
filed by respondent No.3 i.e. the Maharashtra Public Service Commission
before this Court, it emerges, that the Commission has acknowledged, that
the appellant actually possessed the qualifications, and ought to have been
interviewed while considering eligible candidates for appointment to the
post of Deputy Director/Joint Director. This assertion is depicted in the
counter affidavit filed by the Commission which is to the following effect:
"On verifying his documents the Commission realized that he
should be interviewed for the post. It is also true that his
juniors in the government service were called for the interview
as they had the requisite qualifications as per the criteria
fixed."
In fact, the fact that the appellant possessed the necessary
qualifications has been duly noticed in the order of the Tribunal, relevant
part thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. At this juncture, it will not be out of place of mention
that by an interim order dated 15.6.2011, the Tribunal had
permitted the applicant to participate in the process of
interview for both the posts i.e. Deputy Director and Joint
Director, as prima facie the Tribunal was of the view that the
applicant did possess required experience laid down under the
short listing criteria. It is a matter of record that the
applicant at the time of interview did submit experience
certificate, a copy of which is filed at Annexure A-5 which
clearly indicate that the applicant has experience of working in
the post of Senior Geologist. The applicant had neither
furnished requisite information correctly to MPSC when he
submitted his application form nor did he submit the experience
certificate at Annexure A-5."
A perusal of the above observations reveal, that the appellant was
provisionally permitted to participate in the process of selection, during
the course whereof, he provided complete details of his experience. It is,
therefore, apparent, that not only the appellant participated in the
process of selection, but he was found to be eligible, even in terms of the
upward revision of the qualifications adopted, for the process of short
listing.
The High Court while affirming the order passed by the Tribunal
held, that the disclosure of the experience by the appellant was based on
the advertisements and the requirements of experience depicted therein. We
are fully satisfied with the aforesaid conclusion. That, in our considered
view, cannot adversely alter the position of the appellant, to his
detriment. Because, there was no occasion for the appellant, to give any
further details, keeping in mind the format of the two advertisements.
Having held that the appellant possessed the revised upward qualifications
for short listing, we are of the view that the interim direction of the
authorities below in allowing him to be interviewed was just and proper,
and needs to be given effect to. To determine the claim of the appellant,
the respondents shall give effect to the selection process, and in case the
appellant was graded higher than the two selected candidates, he shall be
appointed in terms of the marks awarded to him. The adjustment of the
appellant will depend on his grading and inter-se merit vis-‘-vis the two
selected candidates.
The instant appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
..........................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH
KHEHAR)
..........................J.
(M.Y. EQBAL)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 3, 2014.
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.15 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27421/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 21/08/2012 in WP No.3546/2012 of The
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR)
SHEKHAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and with prayer for interim
relief and office report)
Date: 03/03/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
For Petitioner(s) Mr.Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv.
Ms.Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv.
Mr.Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Adv.
Mr.Abhinav Jain, Adv.
Mr.Amol N.Suryawanshi, Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR(Not Present)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The instant appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file)