The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vinayak Sharma vs Indian Coast Guard Through Its Director General & Ors. consisting of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna held that final-year students awaiting their results can apply for the post of Assistant Commandant (General Duty) in the Indian Coast Guard.
Facts:
The petitioner, a final-year student, applied for the position of Assistant Commandant (General Duty) in the Indian Coast Guard. He believed he met all the necessary qualifications and sought clarification on the eligibility criteria. He successfully completed the various stages of the examination and obtained his Provisional Degree Certificate. However, he was declared "unfit" in the Final Medical Board Examination due to being overweight. He was given time to lose weight, which he accomplished within 42 days. Despite being declared qualified for the next stage of examination, the petitioner was not included in the final selection list for the position.
Procedural History:
The petitioner’s father requested that the petitioner’s name be included in the select list, but the request was denied because the petitioner was in the fifth semester at the time of filling out the application instead of the required sixth semester. The petitioner then sent a legal notice to the Director General but received no response.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that Clause 4(a) of the advertisement stated the position was open to final year/final semester students. The petitioner emailed the respondents seeking clarification on the qualification, but instead of providing clarity, the respondents told him to refer to the advertisement. It was also contended that the respondents did not consider the term “final year” and rejected his application without a clear reason stated in the advertisement. It was also pointed out that another advertisement for the same position in a different batch had additional eligibility criteria clearly stated, but the subject advertisement for the petitioner’s batch lacked clarity on these aspects.
Respondent: The petitioner applied for the position of Assistant Commandant (General Duty) for the batch 01/2023 and provided information that was deemed to be true and correct. The petitioner had incorrectly stated that they had no present backlogs in his application, despite not having his fifth semester results. Therefore, it was argued that his candidature should be cancelled. The senior panel counsel argued that the advertisement for other jobs in subsequent years was not relevant to the current case.
Observations by the Court:
The court acknowledged that the advertisement for the 01/23 batch allowed candidates in their final year or semester, awaiting results, to apply. It was undisputed that the petitioner had asked for clarification on their eligibility and was told to refer to the advertisement. The court also noted that in the advertisement for the 02/2023 batch, the word “appeared” was replaced with “studying” in the additional eligibility criteria.
It opined that the respondents believed that the petitioner was mistakenly declared qualified during the document verification at stage II. This means that if the respondents had noticed that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirements, he would have been able to prove it by presenting his graduate degree. Additionally, the advertisement stated that successful candidates should be able to provide their provisional or original degree at the time of the Final Section Board, but it was not mentioned that the petitioner was asked to provide their degree at that stage, and he was unable to do so.
It relied on Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur & Ors. to opine if a university mistakenly admitted an ineligible candidate and the candidate started attending classes, the fault should be attributed to the university and the candidate should not be penalized. Reliance was also placed on Charles K. Skaria and Ors. v. Dr. C. Mathew & Ors. wherein the Court directed the creation of a seat for three candidates who were admitted by the selection committee but ousted for not producing the certificate of diploma. Reliance was also placed on Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee & Ors. wherein it was opined that every violation of the rule relating to the submission of proof need not necessarily result in the rejection of candidature.
It observed that the petitioner showed strong determination to join the Force by losing 15 kg in 42 days to qualify for the medical stage. The respondents informed the court that vacancies for the post of Assistant Commandant (GD) for 2023 had already been filled. The petitioner filed an application stating that if he was not allowed to join the upcoming batch in June 2023, he would suffer irreparable loss. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not meet the age eligibility for the batch and therefore could not be considered.
Judgment:
The respondents were told to consider the petitioner’s request to join the 02/2023 batch but with the seniority and benefits of the 01/2023 batch. If there were no vacancies, they were instructed to create one for the petitioner in the 01/2023 batch. The court did not comment on any other eligibility criteria, except for the requirement of an educational degree. If the petitioner met the other criteria mentioned in the 01/2023 batch advertisement, the respondents must offer them the position of Assistant Commandant (GD) within two weeks of the judgment so that they can join the 2/2023 batch.
Case: Vinayak Sharma vs Indian Coast Guard Through Its Director General & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 3134/2023 & CM APPL. 24494/2023
Bench: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
For Petitioner: Mr. Virendra Goswami, Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Mr. Mayank Tushamar, Mr. L.K. Srivastava & Ms. Parul Khurana, Advs.
For Respondent: Mr. Pavan Narang, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Himanshu Sethi & Ms. Aishwarya Chhabra, Advocates; Ms. Aakanksha Kaul & Ms. Versha Singh, Advocates; Ms. Archana Kumari, Advs.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
