Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Dr J Selvam vs Union Public Service Commission on 6 March, 2025
1 OA 310/1100/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA 310/01100/2024
Dated Thursday the 6th day of March Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
Dr.J.Selvam,
S/o. R.Jayaraj,
West Street,
Gandamanur (P.O),
Andipatty Taluk,
Theni District. .... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. S. Sarvagan Prabhu
Vs
The Union Public Service Commission,
Rep by its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110 069. ....Respondent
By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
2 OA 310/1100/2024
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member (A)) By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
"to call for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent in F.1/90(12)/2023-R.III Union Public Service Commission dated 31.05.2024 and consequential rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent in F.1/90(12)/2023-R.III Union Public Service Commission dated 11.07.2024 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the Respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview to be held on 27.08.2024 for the post in Advertisement No.16/2023 in F.1/90(12)/2023-R.III (Vacancy No.23081610326) one vacancy for the post of Assistant Professor (Tamil) in Jawaharlal Nehru Rajkeeya Mahavidyalaya, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Administration (UR- 01) and pass any such order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances and thus render justice."
2. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant is as follows:-
2.1 The applicant submits that he is a differently abled person having low vision of 60%. Originally he has 100% vision disability and after effective treatment the eye vision have improved. The applicant having educational qualification of Master degree in Tamil, M.Phil and Ph.D. Now, presently he is working as a guest lecturer in the department of Tamil at Government Arts College for Women, 3 OA 310/1100/2024 Nilakottai. He further submits that the respondents herein called for interview through Advertisement No.16/2023 inviting online Recruitment Applications (ORA) for recruitment by selection to the post of (Vacancy No.23081610326) one vacancy for the post of Assistant Professor (Tamil) in Jawaharlal Nehru Rajkeeya Mahavidyalaya, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Administration (UR- 01).
2.2 The applicant further submits that as per the said advertisement No.16/2023 for the post of Assistant Professor he got required qualification to apply. Therefore, through online mode, the applicant uploaded his application in application No. 19915830976 with all relevant documents.
The same was accepted by the respondent and total number of applicant's name were published in the website of the respondent and the applicant was given Roll No.13 out of 17 applicants. After publication of the above said process, the respondent issued the impugned rejection order in F.1/90(12)/2023-R.III Union Public Service Commission dated 31.05.2024. The reason for rejection was that "Not suitable PH category". Subsequently, as per the directions of the respondent in the said impugned order, the applicant 4 OA 310/1100/2024 sent an email on 06.06.2024 and clarified with relevant document stating that he is an qualified candidate belonging to category of person with benchmark disability (PwBD) viz. Blindness and Low Vision with disability i.e., Low Vision(LV). 2.3 He futher submits that after compliance of the defect in the earlier impugned order, the respondent issued 2 nd impugned rejection order in F.1/90(12)/2023-R.III Union Public Service Commission dated 11.07.2024. In the 2 nd impugned rejection order the reason for rejection stated as "Incomplete Application". When the respondent passed the 1st impugned order, they never rejected the applicant's application on the ground of "incomplete application". Only after compliance of 1st impugned rejection order defect the 2nd impugned rejection order was passed The 2 nd impugned order was passed by the respondent totally affect the applicant's right of employment. Because of the impugned rejection orders the applicant's right of employment is affected. Under the circumstances the applicant having no other equally efficacious and alternative remedy, are constrained to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985.
5 OA 310/1100/2024 3.1 The respondents submit that in discharge of the Constitutional obligations of making recruitment to all Civil Services and posts under the Government of India, the Commission acts strictly in terms of the Recruitment Rules and the terms of the advertisement. It is settled proposition of law that in exercise of the power of judicial review, the Courts review not the decision but the decision-making process. Only if the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, bias or malafides would the Courts interfere in the decision-making process. Reference in this regard be made to UOI Vs. A.K. Narula, (2007) 11 SCC 10. Since in the instant case the action of the answering Respondent is not vitiated by arbitrariness, bias or malafides, this Hon'ble Tribunal may not like to interfere into the same. 3.2 The respondents further submit that the said post was advertised vide Advt. No. 16/2023 (Vacancy No. 23081610326) on 26-08-2023 with closing date 14-09-2023. The vacancy is suitable for candidates belonging to category of Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) viz. Blindness and Low Vision with disability i.e. Low Vision (LV), Locomotor Disability including Cerebral Palsy, Leprosy Cured, Dwarfism, Acid Attack Victims and Muscular 6 OA 310/1100/2024 Dystrophy with disability i.e. One leg affected (R or L) (OL) or One arm affected (R or L) (OA) or One leg and One arm affected (OLA) or Leprosy Cured (LC) or Dwarfism (DW) or Acid Attack Victims (AAV).
3.3 The respondents further submit that the Essential Qualifications (EQs) for the said post are as under:
1. Master's Degree (Tamil) with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) in the concerned/ relevant/allied subject from a recognized University/Institute.
2. Must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) (Tamil) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR or a similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET (State level eligibility test).
OR Who are OR have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree (Tamil) in accordance with the UGC (Minimum standards and procedure for award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from time to time as the case may be exempted from NET/SLET/SET provided, the candidates registered for the Ph.D. programme prior to July 11, 2009 shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing ordinances/By-Laws/Regulations of the Institutions awarding the Degree and such Ph.D. candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor in Universities/ 7 OA 310/1100/2024 Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions-
a) Ph.D Degree of the candidate has been awarded in regular mode.
b) The Ph.D. thesis has been evaluated by at least two external examiners.
c) An open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate has been conducted.
d) The candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one must be in a refereed journal.
e) The candidate has presented at least two papers based on his/her Ph.D work in conference/seminars, sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ICSSR/CSIR or any similar agency. The fulfillment of the conditions (a) to
(e) as above are to be certified by the Registrar/Dean (Academic Affairs) of the University concerned.
OR (B) Ph.D. Degree from a foreign University/Institution. NOTE 1. NET/SLET/SET shall not be required for such Master Programmes in Disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted by the UGC, CSIR or Similar Test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. 3.4 The respondents further submits that in response to the advertisement, 17 candidates applied online for the said 8 OA 310/1100/2024 post. Dr. J. Selvam also applied for the said post and he was allotted Roll No. 13 (OBC/PH). The Modalities adopted for the said post are as under:-
i. Scrutiny has been done on the basis of scrutiny report generated by the ORA System and the information/documents furnished by the candidates in their online applications.
ii. The scrutiny of the applications has been done strictly as per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules for the post in question.
iii. Master degree in Tamil Literature/Tamil Literature and Culture/ Classical Tamil Studies.
iv. For variation in spelling of names/change in name, affidavit may be considered sufficient. v. In view of the undertaking signed by the candidates by the candidates in the application, the undertaking regarding intimating to employer wherever applicable, may not be insisted upon specifically.
vi. Some of the candidates can be rejected under more than one category. They have been rejected under the category considered as most appropriate.
3.5 The respondents further submits that on the basis of above said criteria and modalities, 09 candidates were shortlisted to be called for the interview on 27th August,
9 OA 310/1100/2024 2024. The candidature of the petitioner was initially rejected under the category 'Not suitable PH Category' as he had claimed PwBD Percentage 40% under Low Vision whereas uploaded PH certificate (Annexure: R-3) mentioning his PwBD Percentage 100% in Online Recruitment Application (ORA). Since, the post was suitable for Low Vision only and candidate's PwBD Percentage was 100%, he was not considered suitable for the said post. Also his application was incomplete as he had not claimed Master degree in Tamil subject in ORA. He had only claimed Ph.D in Tamil subject.
3.6 The respondents further submits that against rejection, he represented stating that he had applied for the post by entering Low Vision in the application as he had Blindness and Low vision with disability. But due to emergency he had uploaded his old Disability Certificate, which shows 100% vision disability and the same was taken in the year 2005. After taking treatment, his vision has been improved and submitted the disability certificate dated 04.06.2024. As such, he requested to consider the same and allow/permit him to attend the interview. The disability certificate dated 04.06.2024 mentions vision disability is 60%. However, as 10 OA 310/1100/2024 the candidate had not claimed Master degree in Tamil subject in ORA, his candidature was rejected under 'Incomplete Application' as it is clearly stipulated in the advertisement vide 'Para 3 - Minimum Essential Qualifications' "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.
THE CANDIDATE SHOULD, THEREFORE, MENTION ALL HIS/HER QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE IN THE RELEVANT FIELD OVER AND ABOVE THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS."
3.7 The respondents further submits that the petitioner had not claimed his Masters Degree (Tamil) with 55% marks, i.e., one of the essential qualifications, his candidature was rejected under the category 'Incomplete Applications' and that the interview of the above-mentioned post was held on 27.08.2024. In compliance of the interim order dated 23.08.2024 of this Tribunal, the petitioner was also allowed 11 OA 310/1100/2024 provisionally in the interview scheduled on 27.08.2024 subject to the outcome of the said OA. The result has since been declared and Recommendation Letter has been issued to Andaman Administration on 03.09.2024 mentioning therein the name of selected candidate mentioning that the recommendation for the post in question is subject to the final outcome of the instant OA.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. It is seen that in the first instance, the applicant's case was initially rejected as he had submitted a wrong PH certificate through online application mentioning his PwBD percentage as 100%. This had also been admitted by him in his E-mail dated 06.06.2024 stating that due to emergency he had uploaded his old disability certificate which shows 100% vision disability and the same was taken in the year 2005. He further states that due to treatment, his vision has improved in 2024 to low vision with 60% disability. He was allowed to participate in the interview scheduled on 27.08.2024 by virtue of the interim order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Tribunal in this OA. On 2 nd account, his case has been rejected that he did not submit the required certificate of Master Degree/Tamil Literature and Culture 12 OA 310/1100/2024 that 55% marks which is prescribed as an essential qualification. Instead, he has submitted his Ph. D. Certicficate which does not depict whether he has Masters Degree or not and that too whether he has secured 55% marks in Masters Degree or not.
6. In this regard, Hon. Supreme Court in case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & another v Anit Kumar Das, Civil Appeal No.3602 of 2020 decided on 3rd November, 2020 held as under:-
"It is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. The greater latitude is permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts."
7. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled Union Public Service Commission vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others, W.P. (C) 10058/2009 12 decided on 25th January, 13 OA 310/1100/2024 2010 held that no deviation from the terms and conditions of an advertisement and rules for the recruitment for a public office shall be permitted, as such deviation would result in gross injustice to other candidates. Hon. High court of Delhi again in decision delivered in Union Public Services Commission v Tarun Arora, W.P. (C) 3003/2016 decided on 01st February, 2017 has held that while there is no strait jacket precept to balance the administrative difficulties that may arise as a result of rectifying a lapse, the Court would give precedence to the compelling difficulties which may arise upon considering the application. The relevant para is extracted below:
"14. We appreciate and can understand the frustration of the respondent as he has the requisite qualifications yet would suffer for the lapse and error on his part in filling the online application form. At the same time, to accept the plea of the respondent in the present case would lay down the wrong precedent, which would lay the foundation for administrative confusion and chaos. The selection process would halt, get stalled, and would possibly collapse.
15. The Courts, while examining such issues have to maintain a right balance between the mistake and chance to rectify the lapse, and the administrative difficulties and consequences. Administrative difficulties, thus, should be 14 OA 310/1100/2024 balanced with the adverse impact befalling the candidate. A strait jacket precept WP(C) No.1144/2022 Page 8 of 8 may not be universally applicable. The nature of the selection process, the terms stipulated, whether the rectification and amendment would make the selection process unyielding and unmanageable, are different facets which must be considered. Where the application forms are vague and unclear, the benefit must and should be given to the applicant.
16. In the present case, the administrative difficulties which are compelling must be given primacy, for otherwise the selection process would be impede, become disorderly and crumble. The present case does not warrant indulgence and concession to the respondent."
8. In the present case, the UPSC advertisement contained clear-cut instruction that the applicants are advised that the candidate should mention all his/her qualification and experience in relevant filed over and above the minimum qualification. In view of this, it is clear that non-compliance, even if it is unintentional, cannot be condoned to ensure fairness and consistency in public recruitment process.
9. It is also seen that, out of 17 candidates under PWD Category, 9 candidates have been called for interview and 8 candidates have been rejected due to various reasons such 15 OA 310/1100/2024 as Incomplete Application, Overage, Not suitable PH Category, Duplicate Applications, and Non-Submission of requisite documents. We do not find any cogent reason to intervene in the selection process.
10. It is also seen that the recruitment process is completed and the name of the recommended candidate has been conveyed to the competent authority for issue of appointment order with a note that the recommendation is subject to outcome of OA No. 1100/2024 before this Tribunal. Since the recruitment process is complete and a deserving candidate has already been selected, his rightful claim to the post cannot be questioned. It is also clear that the applicant did not submit his Masters Degree Certificate having 55% marks or above. In the result, the respondent authorities are well within their competency to reject his application. Any other view in this case will be a case of misplaced sympathy.
11. To conclude, we are of the view that there is no merit in the case and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
LM 06.03.2025