VARUN ANEJA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
$~87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15416/2024 & CM APPL. 64615/2024 & CM APPL. 64616/2024
VARUN ANEJA …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Mrs. Priyanka M. Bhardwaj and Ms. Akshita Nain, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Kant Srivatava, SPC with Mr. Lavkesh Aggarwal, GP for UOI
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Adv. for R-2/UPSC
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGEMENT (ORAL)
% 05.11.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails order dated 8 October 2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 3228/2024, which declines the petitioners prayer for interim relief.
2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Administrative Officer, Geological Survey of India. The essential qualification prescribed for the said post was as under:
EQ(ii) – EXPERIENCE: Two years’ experience in Administration or Accounts or establishment or Legal or Vigilance matters in Central or State or Union Territory Government or Government Autonomous or Statutory Organisation or Central or State Public Sector Corporation or University.
3. Though the petitioner provisionally qualified the examination held for the said post as per the result declared on 5 April 2024, he was not allowed to participate in the interview on the ground that he did not fulfil the afore-extracted EQ(ii). The petitioners case was that he did fulfil the said qualification.
4. Para 10 of the impugned order reveals that the following experience certificate was placed before the learned Tribunal which, according to the petitioner, satisfies the requirement of EQ(ii):
F. No. P-301 Exp. Certificate./NS/V-506/2024-25/5302Dated: 28.06.2024
This is to certify that Sh. Varun Aneja (D.O.B. 25.12.1997), Notice Server S/o Sh. Harish Kumar is an employee of this department and duties performed by him during the period(s) are as under:
5. Following this, the learned Tribunal has held as under:
However, the U.P.S.C. has not found the said educational qualification in order. Such experience certificate submitted by the applicant pertains to his duties as M.T.S. whereas the work advertised is clerical in nature and his work experience in the areas mentioned though vide-ranging, may not satisfy the work experience criteria of the respondents. Moreover, this Court has no such wherewithal to establish correlation between the experience gained in various fields as certified by the authority where the applicant works and whether such work is of clerical nature or not, for which the competency lies with an expert body.
13. Therefore, at the threshold, we are unable to grant the applicants prayer for interim relief. The experience required under the RRs is of administrative nature which is not the regular nature of work done by MTS. Hence, prayer for interim relief is rejected.
6. With great respect to the learned Members of the Tribunal, given the fact that the issue in controversy related to the petitioners entitlement to appear in the interview, and the petitioner had already qualified the written examination, we feel that a somewhat more detailed finding on the prima facie merits of the petitioners case that he fulfilled EQ(ii) was required.
7. The learned Tribunal appears to have proceeded on the premise that the UPSC had not found the said educational qualification to be satisfactory and that the nature of the work which the petitioner would have to discharge as Administrative Officer in the Geological Survey of India was clerical, so that the petitioner might not have been suitable for the said work.
8. In our considered opinion, the test applied by the learned Tribunal is not correct. The learned Tribunal ought to have addressed itself as to whether the experience of the petitioner as per the certificate, which was placed before the learned Tribunal, satisfies the requirement of two years experience in Administrative or Accounts, which is what the petitioner claimed to possess. The nature of the duties which the petitioner would have to discharge, were he to be appointed as Administrative Officer, cannot constitute a valid consideration when considering the eligibility of the petitioner to appear in the interview for the post. The prescribed EQs do not include any requirement of the candidate having to be adept in clerical work, or any similar consideration. The eligibility of the candidate for recruitment has to be judged strictly on the basis of the prescribed qualifications, and cannot be decided on the basis of the requirements of the post for which recruitment is being made, unless those requirements find place in the prescribed qualifications.
9. No prima facie view on this aspect of the matter is forthcoming in the impugned judgment.
10. With consent of the parties, therefore, we set aside the impugned order dated 8 October 2024 and remand the application to the learned Tribunal for a de novo consideration.
11. As the interviews are scheduled to commence on 11 November 2024, we direct the parties to appear before the learned Tribunal on 7 November 2024. We request the learned Tribunal to take up the application on the said date and, if possible, pass orders thereon one way or the other.
12. We do not express any opinion on the petitioners entitlement to interim relief as sought. The entire issue would be open to decision by the learned Tribunal as it deems fit after hearing learned Counsel for both sides.
13. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
14. Let a copy of this order be given dasti to learned Counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
NOVEMBER 5, 2024/N/dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 15416/2024 Page 1 of 1