Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Gurvinder Singh Son Of Sh. Baldev Singh vs Union Of India on 9 December, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Reserved on 06.12.2016)
O.A No.060/01054/2015 Date of decision: 09.12.2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
Gurvinder Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh, Age 36 years
Working as Hospital Attendant in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER),
Sector 12, Chandigarh.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. P.M. Kansal.
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Department of Health and Family of Welfare,
New Delhi.
2. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), through its Director,
Sector 12, Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Sanjay Goyal.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
The applicant has approached this Tribunal praying for quashing of decision dated 21.11.2015 issued by Assistant Administrative Officer (Recruitment Cell) whereby the applicant has been declared ineligible for further process of recruitment for the post of Store Keeper on the ground that his experience is before obtaining the Diploma of Material Management. He has further sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider him eligible in terms of recruitment rules and thereafter call for interview for the post in question and declare result.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent- Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (in short PGIMER) issued an advertisement inviting online applications from the citizens of India for recruitment to various posts including 13 Group C posts of Store Keeper on regular basis. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on 13.08.2014 declaring revised vacancy position in respect of post in question where the posts were increased to 16 from 13. Out of these, 8 were for general category, 02 for SC category, 01 for ST category and remaining 5 were for OBC. The applicant being eligible applied for the post in question under general category and was subjected to written examination on 15.03.2015. He was declared qualified in examination. Vide notice dated 19.10.2015, issued by institute, the respondents displayed the list of short listed candidates based upon the written examination and same were placed before the scrutiny Committee of the institute where they have declared 25 candidates eligible, 3 candidates provisionally eligible and 41 candidates as Not eligible. The name of the applicant figured at S.No. 20 in the list of not eligible with remarks that experience not as per required level. Thereafter, he submitted a representation dated 23.10.2015. Pending decision, the respondents called eligible/provisionally eligible candidates to appear in an interview on 26.11.2015. His representation was kept pending and he was compelled to approach this court by filing present O.A in which notice of motion was issued on 19.11.2015 and on 24.11.2015, when matter came up for hearing, the counsel for the respondents apprised this court that they have already decided his pending representation vide order dated 21.11.2015 and accordingly, the applicant filed the amended O.A impugning the order passed by respondents rejecting his claim.
3. The respondents have resisted the claim of the applicant by filing written statement and submitted that the applicant is not having experience after acquiring the essential qualification as required in the advertisement and his experience was of earlier period, therefore, scrutiny committee of the Institute considered him ineligible for the post in question.
4. The applicant has also filed rejoinder wherein apart from contradicting the averment made in written statement, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Honble jurisdictional High Court passed in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Priya Mahajan & Ors. (L.P.A No. 1988/2011) decided on 16.01.2013 , Ghasi Ram Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (CWP No. 14201/2011) decided on 12.12.2014 and Jai Parkash Sharma and Anr. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CWP No. 2784/2015) decided on 01.10.2015.
5. We have heard Sh. P.M. Kansal, Advocate and Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Sh. Kansal, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that impugned decision declaring the applicant in-eligible for the post in question is nothing but non application of mind. To elaborate his argument, he submitted that the rule governing the filed for the post in question talks of only experience in relevant field, thus, the respondents cannot be allowed to import or imposed arbitrary condition which does not find mention in recruitment rules, therefore, their decision be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents, firstly, to call the applicant for an interview and thereafter declare his result.
7. Per contra, Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated what has been stated in the written statement. Apart from that, he submitted that once a conscious decision has been taken by the Scrutiny Committee of the institute that the applicant is not having requisite experience after acquiring the essential qualification in the relevant filed, therefore, he is not eligible for the post in question.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings as available on record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
9. The core question that arose for our consideration is as to whether the respondents can impose a condition which does not find a mention in the recruitment rules?
10. A conjunctive perusal of the pleadings makes it clear that the applicant has been declared ineligible for the post in question despite being declared successful in written examination on the ground that he does not possess the requisite experience in relevant field after acquiring the essential qualification. For better appreciation, the relevant rule formulation governing the filed reads as under:-
Essential:- (i) Bachelors degree in Economic/Commerce/Statistics.
(ii) Postgraduate degree/diploma in Material Management from a recognized University/Institute or equivalent.
Desirable: - Experience in handling stores and record keeping in a store preferably medical or concern of a repute in public or private sector.
Or
(i) Degree of a recognized University or equivalent.
(ii) Post graduate degree/diploma in Material Management of a recognized University/Institution.
(iii) Three years experience in handling stores preferably medical stores in Govt. Public/Private Sector. Perusal of above extraction makes it clear that there is a requirement of three years experience in handling stores preferably medical stores in government /public and private sector. It does not talk of what the respondents have interpreted. It only shows that one should be having three years of experience for the post in question and does not talk of experience after acquiring essential qualification. Concededly, the respondents have not declared the applicant ineligible for not having requisite experience, what they have said that the applicant is in possession of experience which is before acquiring the essential qualification. In the light of the above reproduced relevant rule, we are in agreement with submission made at the hands of the applicant that the respondents cannot be allowed to impose condition which is contrary to service rules. Once, service rules are silent then the respondents cannot impose this condition that experience should be after the essential qualification when he acquired. The respondents cannot take this plea that experience has to be after acquiring essential qualification. Likewise issue as raised in present O.A, came up before Honble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Priya Mahajan (supra) wherein vide judgment dated 16.01.2013 it has been held as under:-
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record and are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge because the statutory rules do not provide for experience of one year after acquiring the minimum educational qualification and this condition has been prescribed only by way of a note in the advertisement but the fact remains that no new condition can be imposed in the advertisement in the presence of statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which would have supermacy as the Note-9 appended to the advertisement has no sanction of law.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and hence the same is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs. Even otherwise, this issue has already been considered by their lordship in case of Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 332 where while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, it has been held that the rule 3(e) which required one year experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification.
11. Similar view has already been taken in case of D. Stephen Joseph Vs. Union of India, 1997 (4) SCC 753 and in case of Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. , 2000(1) SCC 128. Thus the poser stands answered in negative.
12. In the light of the above authoritative law, we are left with no other option but to quash the impugned orders being contrary to the rule governing the field and accordingly, O.A is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant eligible as far as experience is concerned and thereafter, he be called for an interview for the post in question and then declare the result and take further action accordingly.
13. No costs.
(RAJWANT SANDHU) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 09.12.2016
jk
1
O.A No. 060/01054/2015