Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Lekhraj Meena vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 15 April, 2023
1
OA No.4137/2017
4137/2017
Item No.72
CT-4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.4137
4137/2017
This the 15th day of April, 2023
HON'BLE MR. ANAND MATHUR, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. MANISH GARG,
GARG MEMBER(J)
Lekhraj Meena Age
Age- 28 years,
Slo Sh. Shankar Lal Meena
Resident of Vill- Sedari, Post- Dehit,
Teh-- Talera, Dist.- Bundi, Rajasthan-323021
Rajasthan
..Applicant
(By Advocate: Dr. Vijendra Mahidiyan)
Mahidiyan
Vs
1. Union of India
Through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
DGHS, Director, New Delhi.
2. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Recruitment Cell
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi
Delhi-110608
110608
Represented by its Director
3. Lady Harding Medical & Smt S K Hospital
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi
Represented by its Director
..Respondents
s
(By Advocate
Advocates: Mr. Vijendra Singh and Mr. Mayank
Yadav
Yadav)
ORDER(ORAL)
(ORAL) Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg,, Member(J) Member( In the present matter the applicant is seeking the following relief:
2OA No.4137/2017
Item No.72 CT-4 "a) Quash and set aside an impugned order dated 23.09.2017 issued by Respondents whereby candidature of the applicant stands cancelled for a reason being No Experience as a Staff Nurse.
b) To Call for the records pertaining to the selection of the applicants to the post of staff nurse grade 'B' in pursuance of advertisement dated October 2014.
c) To direct the respondent to issue appointment letter to the applicant and further to allow him to join duty on the post of Staff Nurse grade B in LHMC alongwith all consequential benefits.
d) Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to Order dated 18.12.2017 wherein as an interim measure it was directed that any appointment on the aforesaid post in question shall be subject to outcome of the OA.
2.1 In support of his arguments the learned counsel has drawn attention to following facts:
"2.2 The applicant herein has passed the examination for B.Sc. Nursing in July 2013 and subsequently, he got registered himself on 11.10.2013 with The Rajasthan State Nursing Council at Jaipur under the provisions of Rajasthan Nursing Council Act of 1964.3 OA No.4137/2017
Item No.72 CT-4 2.3 The Applicant worked as a Nursing Tutor/Clinical Instructor in Vande Matram College of Nursing, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh from 01.11.2013 to 01.11.2014 and also got issued with an experience certificate dated 26.04.2017 in this behalf by the Hospital. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant herein also worked as Male Staff Nurse from 20.01.2015 to 25.01.2017 in Sanjavini Hospital, Kota, Rajasthan which is 50 bedded approved by Rajasthan Government Hospital and got issued with an experience certificate dated 30.10.2017 in this behalf by the Hospital.
2.4 In the month of October 2014, an advertisement No. Oct 2014 A-12026/3/2013-NH-1 was issued by the respondent No. 1 through Respondent No.2 i.e. AllMS, New Delhi for inviting the applications online for the post of Staff Nurse Group 'B' in the pay band-2 of scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. It is pertinent to mention that the applications stood invited in respect of vacant posts of Staff Nurse in hospitals namely Dr. RML Hospital, Safdarjung Hospital, LHMC & Smt. Suchita Kriplani Hospital, and kalawati Saran 4 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 Children's Hospital. The closing date of Submission of exam was fixed 15.01.2015. It is relevant to mention that total posts under the said advertisement are 692 and details of the total posts against each of the aforesaid hospitals is given below duly bifurcated into its category wise:-
Name of Institution UR SC ST OBC Total*
Dr. RML Hospital 99 37 79 71 226
Safdarjung Hospital 87 47 16 - 150
LHMS 8 Smt. Suchita 117 39 25 85 266
Kriplani Hospital
Kalawati Saran 37 03 01 09 50
Children's Hospital
2.5 The applicant herein applied online for the post of staff nurse well within closing date as stipulated in the said along with all the relevant documents. It is of relevancy that the essential educational qualification under the advertisement is as mentioned below;-
I. (i) B.Sc. (Hons.) in Nursing from recognized University or 5 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 Institute. Or Regular course in B.Sc. Nursing from a recognized University or Institute. Or (1) Post Basic 3.Sc. Nursing from a recognized University or Institute: Registered as a Nurse or Nurse and Midwife (RN or RM and RM) with State Nursing Council:
(1) Six months experience in minimum fifty beddęd hospital acquiring the educational qualification mentioned abovẻ.
ll. (i) Diploma in General Nursing Mid-wifery from recognized Board or Council.
(ü) registered as a Nurse or Nurse and Midwife (RN or RN and RM) with State Nursing Council and
(iii) Two and half-year experience in minimum fifty bedded hospital after acquiring the educational qualification mentioned at ll. (i) above. Note 1) Experience is relaxable at the discretion of the competent authority for reason to be recorded in writing in the case of candidates otherwise well qualified. Note 2) The qualification (s) regarding experience is/are relexable at the discretion of the competent 6 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 authority for reasons to be recorded in writing in the case of the candidate belonging to Schedule Castes or the Schedule Tribes, if at any stage or selection the competent authority, is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from the communities possessing the requisite experience are not likely to be available to fill up vacancies reserved for them. 2.6 The applicant herein applied online on 11.01.2015 for the post of staff nurse. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of filling up the application form dated 11.01.2015 through the cyber cafe centre the cafe person has filled up the working experience as of a clinical instructor from 01.11.2013 to 01.11.2014 but later on he get to know that computer did not accepted that information. Resultantly, the relevant column remained blank but this fact was revealed much tater but the application of the applicant stood accepted by the respondent which gave legitimate expectation to the applicant that he full fill all the criteria.
2.7 A list of eligible candidates for undergoing the written test was published by the respondent No. 2 7 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 i.e. AlIMS, New Delhi and it is well understood that due scrutiny of the application forms of the candidate again was conducted in all its probability. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant herein was found eligible and hence his name was included in the list of eligible candidates which give clear expression that there was no impediment in the candidature of the applicant.
2.8 After duly scrutinizing the application forms filled up by applicant herein, he was issued with an admit card by the respondents and he was called for written examination on 22.01.2017. It is of relevance that applicant was permitted to undergo written examination, this is the second stage giving clear go ahead for the candidature of applicant. 2.9 The result of the written examination was declared on 07.04.2017 and applicant herein scored 104.333 marks ie. more than cut off marks as declared by the respondents.
Overall rank 637 and therefore his name stood reflected in the list of successful candidates. 8 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 2.10 The applicant herein was further called for the document verification on 07.06.2017 by the hospital LHMC and-the same was completed infact on the same date.
2.11 The applicant herein was asked to fill up an attestation form, wherein he filled up the same and sent it to respondents on 11.06.2017 as desired by the respondents. He furnished all the requisite information. It is pertinent to mention that under column 11 (A), an information was sought regarding the appointment under Central Government, State Government, Quasi-Government body, autonomous body and Public enterprise.
2.12 The applicant has been misguided by the language used under column 11 as it does not expressly asked about the Working experience as a staff nurse. It is pertinent to mention that applicant has shown only the experience as clinical instructor in the verification form dated 11.06.2017 and not the working experience of staff nurse whereas he was in possession of working experience certificate as a staff nurse in Sanjivin Hospital, Kota, Rajasthan. 9 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 2.13 Respondent namely LHMC & Smt. Suchita Kriplani Hospital has uploaded a list of provisionally selected candidates dated 12.09.2017 wherein the applicant did not find his name in the list of provisionally selected candidates. 2.14 Thereafter, applicant meets with the officials of the respondents whereby he has been told verbally that his Candidate is out to consideration zone as he does not possess requisite working experience as a staff nurse.
2.15 The applicant herein has been issued,-with the cancellation letter dated 23.09.2017. whereby he has been intimated that, his candidature for the post of staff nurse has been cancelled as No Experience as Staff Nurse is found.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant would contend that it is "experience which is material and not experience certificate. He further draws our attention that the nature of experience has not been contemplated in the advertisement notice and therefore he is entitled to seek relief(s) seeks in OA. His experience certificate even though not filed at the time 10 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 of filing of application nor further disclosed in the application form but ought to have been considered at the time of interview.
4. He draws reference to clause 15 of the Advertisement notice, which reads as under:-
"15. All the original certificates/documents will be verified at the time of Interview. On the básis of written test, the shortisted candidates must bring all original certificates along with one set of photocopy, duly attested, viz:
i) Copy of download Registration Slip of on-line application form.
ii) Copy of download Admit Card.
iii) Certificate showing the Date Birth.
iv) Certification of passing High School/High Secondary/B.SC (Hons)/B.Sc Nursing/Post Basic B.Sc.
Nursing orits equivalent forms a recognized University/Board.
v) Certificate in General Nursing and Midwifery from recognized Institution
vi) Registration certificate as 'A' grade Nurse and Midwife from State Nursing Council.
vii) Caste certificate if applied under SC/ST/OBC category issued by the competent authority.
viii) Disability Certificate, if applied under OH-(0L) category.
ix) 'No Objection Certificate, if in employment.
x) Experience certificate.
5. He does not dispute that Online date of registration was 13.01.2015. He also does not dispute the fact that neither in the application form any experience was mentioned since there was no 11 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 requirement in the advertisement to fill the same nor the applicant was required to upload the same in terms of the advertisement. He draw reference to a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3600/2019 Food Cooperation of India V/s Rimjhim, he draws attention to para 9 and 11 of the said decision:
"9. So far as the case on behalf of the FCI that as the original writ petitioner did not produce the certificate of one year's experience along with the application is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the advertisement there was no such requirement. What is provided in the advertisement is that a candidate must have one year's experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice- versa along with the other qualifications. The advertisement does not provide specifically and/or provide that a candidate shall produce the certificate of experience along with the application. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed that non production of one year's experience certificate along with the application cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the original writ petitioner and on that ground the original writ petitioner could not have been denied the appointment, if otherwise she is found to be meritorious. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court.
11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the FCI that a candidate must and/or ought to have produced the experience certificate along with the application is concerned, at this stage, a decision of this Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC 752 and the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee and others (2005) 9 SCC 779 are required to be referred to. In the case of Charles K. Skaria (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between the essential requirements and the proof/mode of proof. In the aforesaid case, this Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between a fact and its proof. In the aforesaid case before this Court, a candidate/student was entitled to extra 10% marks for holders of a diploma and the diploma must be obtained on or before the last date of the application, not later. In the aforesaid case, a candidate secured diploma before the final date of application, but did not produce the evidence of diploma along with the application. Therefore, he was not allowed extra 10% marks and therefore denied the admission. Dealing with such a situation, this Court observed and held that what was essential requirement was that a candidate must have obtained the diploma on or before the last date of application but not later, and that is the primary requirement and to submit the proof that the diploma is obtained on or before a particular date as per the essential requirement is secondary. This Court specifically observed and held that "what is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification". This Court specifically observed and held that "to 12 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity". This Court further observed and held that "to make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, to invalidate the merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. While observing and holding so, in paragraphs 20 & 24, this Court observed and held as under"
6. In view of the above, the applicant prays for grant of relief in the OA.
7. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that on the face of it on bare perusal of proceedings in the OA itself more specifically, the applicant has taken different stand one after the other inasmuch as in page 4 following has been noted:
"The applicant herein applied online on 11.01.2015 for the post of staff nurse. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of filling up the application form dated 11.01.2015 through the cyber cafe centre the cafe person has filled up the working experience as of a clinical instructor from 01.11.2013 to 01.11.2014 but later on he get to know that computer did not accepted that information. Resultantly, the relevant column remained blank but this fact was revealed much tater but the application of the applicant stood accepted by the respondent which gave legitimate expectation to the applicant that he full fill all the criteria"
8. In para 4.9 of the OA, the following has been stated:
"That the applicant has been misguided by the language used under column 11 as it does not expressly asked about the Working experience as a staff nurse. It is pertinent to mention that applicant has shown only the experience as clinical instructor in the verification form dated 11.06.2017 and not the Working-experience of 13 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 staff nurse whereas he was in possession of working experience certificate as a staff nurse in Sanjivin Hospital, Kota, Rajasthan."
9. Learned counsel for the respondents for Union of India relies upon the averment made in the counter affidavit inter alia stated that the applicant is not entitled to relief sought inasmuch as the advertisement itself stipulated the experience where was required and he has drawn attention to page 34:-
"1. Qualifications:
A candidate must possess the following essential qualification as under:
B.Sc. (Hons.) in Nursing from a recognized University or institute.
Regular Course in B.Sc.Nursing from a recognized University or Institute.
Or Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing from a recognized University or Institute:
Registered as a Nurse or Nurse and Midwife (RN or RN and RM) with Or
(ii) State Nursing Council.
Six months experience in minimum fifty bedded hospital after acquiring the educational qualification mentioned above.
(i) Diploma in General Nursing Mid-wifery from a recognized Board or Council.
Or
(ii) Registered as a Nurse or Nurse and Mid-wife (RN or RN and RM) with State Nursing Council and 14 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4
(i) Two and half years experience in minimum fifty bedded hospital after acquiring the educational qualification mentioned at II (i)"
10. The respondents would argue that for the post of "Nursing Officer" the same have a correlation and nexus to the post for which the applicant had applied. He draw attention to Annexure R-5 page 45, wherein, he has drawn a reference experience cum relieving letter of the applicant which is quoted as under:
"It is certified that Mr. Lekhraj Meena S/o Mr. Shankar Lal Meena is working on the post of Nursng Tutor/Clinical Instructor in our Institution "Vande Matram College of Nursing" Since 01.11.2013 to 01.11.2014. During this period her services were extremely nice and extemporary."
11. The respondents would contend that the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification as highlighted above as he is having experience of Nursing Tutor/Clinical Instructor in the institution as per experience certificate and same has no relation to the post in question contrary to the RRs. He further draws attention to a decision of a Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in OA No. 3864/2017 Rajesh Kumar Bairwa Vs Union of India dated 20.09.2019 and and 3874/2017 K.C. Swetha Vs. Union of India dated 20.09.2019. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned counsel for the applicant 15 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 was the same counsel in the present matter also and the reliefs were denied by the Coordinate Bench in terms of para 19 & 20, which reads as under:' "19. The plea of the applicant is that she was issued an admit card based upon the information furnished in the online application form which indicated that she does not have any experience as a Staff Nurse. Therefore, her candidature cannot be cancelled later on the plea of her not having experience as a Staff Nurse. This plea is erroneous and is not acceptable. It was expressy enjoined upon the candidates as per the advertisement, to satisfy themselves that they have the requisite experience as on the last date of filling up of online application form. The applicant is an educated person who was required to furnish correct information in the online application form. She did not fill the form correctly, even to the extent of omitting relevant experience as a Staff Nurse. In fact this column was left blank (para 4 supra). It is not open to the candidate to turn up now and plead that she actually had the requisite qualifications and the experience and it is the mistake of computer that has caused her the trouble. Once she verified the online filled up form and uploaded it, she has to own up full responsibility in this regard.
20. Even on merits also, it is the Tribunal's view that application form was deficient and did not show that she had requisite experience as a Staff Nurse. The attestation form filled also does not show any experience as a Staff Nurse. It only shows experience as Lecturer in Nursing. Her pleas of confusing language in attestation form are not acceptable in view of factual position of reading of the item in attestation form (para 6 supra). Hence, rejection of her candidature on this account, cannot be faulted. Even the RRs also specify that B. Sc. (Hons.) Nursing candidate needs to have six months experience (para-9 supra)."
12. Learned counsel for the respondents would also contend that the said Coordinate Bench's decision are in respect of the same advertisement and has been contested hereto.
16OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4
13. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been discriminated qua one Ms. Pratiksha for which the counsel for the applicant draws reference to the following pleadings:
"So far as the candidature of Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Roll No. 203213 is concerned, this candidate has mentioned experience in ESI Hospital, Basaidarapur, New Delhi as a Staff Nurse in the Registration Slip for recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse in the AIIMS. However, during the process of document verification, Pratiksha Sharma submitted the experience certificate issued by one Agency, M/s Vayudoot Security Services Pvt. Ltd. (Annexure-R-13). This firm has given the certificate that Ms. Pratiksha Sharma has worked at ESI Hospital, Basaidarapur, New Delhi for the period 10.07.2014 to 22.12.2015 as Staff Nurse. This institution vide letter dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure-R-14) has requested ESI Hospital, Basaidarapur, New Delhi to verify the certificate submitted by M/s Vayudoot Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the candidature of Ms. Pratiksha Sharma was not cancelled.
14. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
Analysis
15. It is a well settled law that the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement are sacrosanct and are binding on all the parties, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court & various Hon'ble High Court.
17OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4
16. Anyone who makes an application for direct recruitment has to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, prescribed therein. There cannot be any deviation or relaxation thereto. Admittedly, it is not disputed that the applicant did not even fill the experience which he was having and did not attach a copy of the experience certificate with the application form and left the column blank.
17. We have carefully gone through the application form where no experience has been mentioned, therefore, onus lies upon the applicant to prove the same. It is also noticeable that there is an undertaking, which reads as under:
"I have read and understand the Advertisement & detailed information on website and satisfied the eligibility in all respect for the post(s) before 13.01.2015. I hereby declare that the information furnished by me in the Application Form is correct and nothing has been concealed by me. In case any information furnished by me is found false, my candidature/registration/admission/service may be cancelled/terminated with immediate effect. I also realise that if any information furnished herein found to be incorrect or untrue; I shall also be liable to civil/criminal prosecution and also forgo my claim to the admission/appointment in the Institute".18 OA No.4137/2017
Item No.72 CT-4
18. Shifting responsibility of non mentioning of the experience, upon the cyber cafe does not absolve the applicant of his duty to comply with the terms and conditions of Advertisement. The contention of the applicant, that he was not familiar with the process of filling up the online application form does not appeal to us inasmuch as the duties assigned to the post of Staff Nurse are of a very onerous nature. A nurse is required to be tech savvy so as to read and find out the exact medicine to be administered to the patient, therefore, the plea of lack of computer literacy reflects poorly on the suitability itself of the applicant to hold the post of a Staff Nurse.
19. We find that the contention of the applicant to pass on the onus of his mistake to the cyber cafe is not tenable. We have also gone through the case-law cited in FCI V/s Rimjhim (supra) wherein the learned counsel for the applicant heavily relied upon the above quoted para 9 & 11 of the said decision.
20. In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with a matter which is not in any manner comparable to the present case. In that case there was no 19 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 requirement in the advertisement, to give details or enclose the experience certificate whereas, in the present case it was necessary to fill the details of experience which the applicant failed to comply and left the column blank.
21. There is also no substance in the plea that similarly situated persons have been granted benefits and that the applicant has been discriminated against. It has been specifically denied by the counsel for the respondents in their arguments that no such discrimination has been meted out. At this stage, we may highlight the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 344/2020, Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited & Anr vs Smt. H. L. Kaveri dated 21 January, 2020 paragraph 11-16 of which read as under:
"11. Under its advertisement dated 11 th November 2013, it was specifically indicated that separate application should be submitted for each post accompanied with various requirements including qualification, experience, etc. and incomplete application, if any, is liable for rejection without assigning any reason. The 1st respondent applied for the post of Senior Assistant/Junior Assistant vide application dated 29th November, 2013. After scrutiny of the applications, the select list of backlog vacancies was published on 16th January, 2015 and it reveals from the record that impleaded 3rd respondent in the writ petition (Smt. Priyanka A. Chanchalkar) was provisionally selected as Senior Assistant securing 64.65% marks. At the same time, the 1st respondent secured 65.43% marks but since the 1st respondent failed to submit experience certificate along with the 20 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 application form, her application at the stage of scrutiny itself was rejected.
12. The Corporation in IA No. 3457 of 2020 has indicated that total 31 applications for the post of Senior Assistant were rejected in view of not enclosing of self attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicant for Senior Assistant against the single post of female (Scheduled Caste) which remain unfilled because of the orders of the Court. At the same time, the Corporation rejected 106 number of applications for the post of Junior Assistant for not enclosing the documents required including self attested copies of experience certificate/caste certificate/computer tally- certificate/graduation certificate/birth certificate, etc.
13. It remains in disputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of which reference has been made that the 1 st respondent had not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the advertisement dated 11th November, 2013 for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reasons which although was disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.
14. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision making process while rejecting the application of the 1st respondent for non fulfilment of the necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the advertisement dated 11th November, 2013.
15. That apart, the post of Senior Assistant which remained vacant, as informed to this Court, even if it is considered that there is a reasonable justification for which the certificate could not have been enclosed by the 1st respondent along with the application, there are several other candidates who have obtained higher percentage in qualifying examination compared to the 1st respondent whose applications have been rejected in view of not enclosing of self - attested documents and there are 7 women candidates listed as valid applicants for the post of Senior Assistant against the single post of women(SC) category, at least no indefensible right in the present circumstances, could have been claimed by the 1st respondent for her inclusion in the select list for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant. At the same time, for the post of Junior Assistant, 106 applications of the applicants were rejected by the Corporation for non enclosing self attested copies including that of the experience certificate and this fact has come on record that out of 10 vacancies advertised, only one post for physically handicapped remain vacant as the suitable candidate was not available, which indeed could not be converted to open/other reserved categories.
16. The Division Bench of the High Court has relied upon the judgment in Seema Kumar Sharma case(supra) in extending relief to the 1st respondent which, in our view, is of no assistance and, in our view, the Division Bench has committed a manifest error by taking 21 OA No.4137/2017 Item No.72 CT-4 note of the experience certificate to support her claim for appointment without even indicating the post for which her claim could be considered in terms of the advertisement dated 11th November, 2013."
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis of the rules laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court Civil Appeal No. 344/2020, Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited & Anr vs Smt. H. L. Kaveri (supra) we find that the present OA is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
23. No order as to costs.
(Manish Garg) (Anand Mathur) Member(J) Member(A) /arti/