Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

D. THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Before proceeding to the merits of the challenge raised in these writ petitions, the Court must note a preliminary objection which was taken by Sri Mishra with regard to the right of the petitioners to assail the eligibility criteria set out on the advertisement as well as the result of the selection process. Sri Mishra submitted that both the advertisements had in unequivocal terms prescribed that a CCC certificate or a certificate of computer knowledge equivalent thereto would be acceptable. It was his submission that this stipulation in the two advertisements entitled all persons who held a computer literacy certificate equivalent to a CCC certificate to participate in the selection process. In view thereof, it was his submission that the petitioners being fully aware of such candidates being also eligible and having participated in the selection process itself cannot now turn around and assail this eligibility condition as prescribed in the advertisements. Sri Mishra contended that in view of the settled legal position on this issue, the petitioners having once participated in the selection process clearly could not raise any challenge to the eligibility conditions prescribed therein and were clearly estopped. Ordinarily and in light of the settled position in law in this respect, Sri Misra would have been correct in his submission. The petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot challenge a prescription contained therein which conferred a status of eligibility even on those candidates who did not hold a CCC certificate but held a certificate which was stated to be equivalent thereto. This condition was unambiguously carried in both the advertisements. However, as would be evident from the recordal of the submissions advanced, the real issue which has been canvassed for consideration before this Court is really not in respect of the eligibility condition as framed and prescribed. In essence the primary issue which has been advanced for the consideration of this Court was whether candidates whose names stood included in the select list did in fact hold certificates which could be described as equivalent to a CCC certificate and if not what would be its resultant impact on the select list. Coupled with this is the enquiry on the issue of whether the Commission did undertake an exercise to assess and examine whether candidates who did not possess a CCC certificate did in fact hold a qualification which could be said to be equivalent thereto. These two issues as would be evident clearly does not rest upon a determination of the validity of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. The seminal issue is whether the select list itself has been validly prepared and whether the candidates included in the said list were in fact qualified and eligible to find place in the said list. This challenge obviously could have been raised by the petitioners only after the publication of the final select list. The challenge as noted above is therefore not really restricted to the validity of the conditions imposed in the advertisement but essentially with respect to the validity of the selection process and the list prepared pursuant thereto. A challenge on this aspect cannot be said to have been lost to the petitioners by mere participation in the selection process. The Court is of the considered view that no estoppel operates against the petitioners insofar as this limb of the challenge is concerned. In view thereof the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mishra is negatived.

Sri H.R. Mishra, learned senior counsel, who has appeared for the Commission, has submitted that the orders issued by the Corporation prescribing the essential qualifications in respect of computer literacy could not be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It was his submission that the prescription of an essential qualification is primarily the function of the employer and it is for the employer alone to judge what would be an appropriate qualification for a particular post. Sri Mishra submitted that the acceptance of a certificate equivalent to CCC was necessitated in order to attract an adequate number of applicants. He submitted that certificates in respect of computer literacy not granted by DOEACC/NIELIT were accepted after a due verification exercise undertaken by the Commission before permitting candidates to appear at the interview. Shri Mishra referring to the stipulations carried in the advertisements highlighted that all candidates who had provisionally cleared the written examination and had been invited to participate in the interview were required to furnish hard copies of their certificates for verification. He submitted that the requirement of producing the certificates in original was scrupulously adhered to. He then also referred to the self-certification submitted by candidates holding out that the certificates being submitted by them were in accordance with the prescriptions carried in the advertisement of they being equivalent to a CCC certificate.

The record would further reveal that although by the Office Order dated 5 July 2013, the requirement of possessing a CCC Certificate issued by DOEACC had been done away with and amended to provide for the holding of a CCC Certificate or a certificate equivalent thereto, the required qualification was again amended on 8 September 2015 with the Board of Directors prescribing not only a CCC certificate but also an O/A/B/C level certificates issued by DOEACC/NIELIT as valid qualifications. By a subsequent decision taken on 28 April 2016, the requirement of holding a CCC Certificate or an equivalent certificate was deleted altogether. It is significant to note that while the resolution dated 8 October 2015 did away with the holding of a computer certificate equivalent to a CCC Certificate a provision was made for aspirants to hold either a CCC/O Level/A Level/B Level/C Level certificate issued by NIELIT, this provision or prescription of eligibility was totally done away with in terms of the resolution of the Board dated 28 April 2016. The second significant aspect which merits notice is that although by its resolution of 8 October 2015 the prescription of eligibility was amended, on 23 November 2015 the Board of Directors proceeded to ratify the order dated 5 July 2013 and specifically saved selections held in the interregnum by providing that the qualification prescribed in the said office order would hold and govern the field between the period 5 July 2013 to 7 October 2015.

34. In such circumstances, the respondent's grievance that the dismissal order had not been passed by the competent authority i.e. the BoG no longer survived."

While dealing with this issue, the Court before proceeding further notes and has to necessarily bear in mind that the power to prescribe a particular qualification vests exclusively in the employer. It is the employer who is the best judge to assess what qualifications must be necessarily possessed by an incumbent to a particular post. While exercising its powers of judicial review, this Court cannot step into the shoes of the employer and judge as to what would be an appropriate qualification. The narrow window within the contours of which the Court would interfere with such a decision is only where the qualifications prescribed are found to be ultra vires a legislative enactment or where it is demonstrated that the qualification prescribed is wholly extraneous to the duties and functions attached to a post. The Court under Article 226 of the Constitution also cannot determine the equivalence between two qualifications since such an exercise would clearly fall within the domain of experts. In view of the above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was no inherent illegality when the respondents proceeded to prescribe the eligibility qualification to be the possession of a CCC Certificate or a certificate equivalent thereto. The Court also as noted above does not find any illegality attached to the ratification by the Board of Directors to the decision of the Managing Director as embodied in his order dated 5 July 2013.