Mohd. Abdullah vs Lt. Governor And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2860 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI


+         Writ Petition (Civil) No.377 of 2007


                               Judgment reserved on: July 22, 2009

%                              Judgment delivered on: July 27, 2009

Mohd. Abdullah
S/o Shri Samivilla
R/o 744, Garhi Pilkhuwa
Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P.                             ...Petitioner

                               Through   Mr. U. Srivastava, Adv.

                     Versus

1.   The Lt. Governor
     Through the Secretary
     Govt. of NCT of Delhi

2.   The Director
     Directorate of Indian System of Medicine & Homeopathy
     Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare
     Govt. of NCT
     A & U Tibia College Campus
     Karol Bagh, New Delhi

3.   The Secretary
     Union Public Service Commission
     Dhaulpur House, Shahjahan Road
     New Delhi                                     ...Respondents

                               Through   Mr. Rohit Madan, Adv. for
                                         Respondents No.1 & 2
                                         Mr. Naresh Kaushik with
                                         Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advs. for
                                         Respondent No.3

WP (C) No.377/2007                                           Page 1 of 5
 Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                                Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  Not necessary

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                      Not necessary

MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 14 th September,

2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi in O.A. No. 957/2006.

2. The Petitioner had completed his Bachelor in Unani

Medicine and Science in 1997. It appears that thereafter he did his post

graduation for three years and for another two years he undertook

clinical practice in the Unani system of medicine.

3. Some time in mid July, 2003 the Respondents issued an

advertisement for filling up the post of Medical Officer. The essential

qualification as given in the advertisement was a Bachelor's degree in

Unani Medicine from a recognized university. The Petitioner fulfilled

this essential qualification and, therefore, sent in his application for

consideration.

4. From the response filed by the Respondents before the

Tribunal, we find that a very large number of candidates had applied for

the post of Medical Officer. In fact, 1518 applications were received

against 8 advertised posts. In view of the large number of applications,

the Respondents evolved a short-listing criteria and for OBC candidates

(the Petitioner belongs to the OBC category) the criteria was as follows:

"i) Degree in Unani of a recognized University/Statutory State Board/Council/Faculty of Indian Medicine or equivalent recognized under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (48 of 1970).

ii) Enrolment on the Central Register of Indian Medicine or State Register of Indian Medicine.

iii) Five years' professional experience after obtaining the BUMS Degree as on closing date ie. 01-07-2003."

5. In the application form submitted by the Petitioner, against

the question pertaining to experience, the Petitioner had indicated that

he had no experience. It appears that despite this, the Petitioner was

short-listed and called for an interview conditional on his producing a

certificate that he had five years' experience.

6. The Petitioner participated in the selection process but since

he did not have the requisite experience, he was not selected.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an original

application before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed by the

impugned order and that is how he is now before us.

8. It was submitted that the Petitioner had the requisite

experience and in fact some documents were shown to us by learned

counsel for the Petitioner in Court. However, we find that since the

matter was fully examined by the selection committee and it was found

that the Petitioner did not have the requisite experience, he cannot claim

selection as a matter of right. It is significant to note that the Petitioner

had himself in the relevant column concerning experience indicated that

he had no experience. The Petitioner may have done his post graduation

in Unani medicine and may have undertaken some internship or

residency courses but that by itself cannot count as experience. Indeed

even the Petitioner understood this to be so and that is why he stated in

his application form that he did not have any experience.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner very fairly did not

challenge the short-listing criteria which was evolved because of the

very large number of applications received by the Respondents. In any

case, we do not find the short-listing criteria to be arbitrary or irrational.

It appears that short-listing was resorted to so that the interview process

could be more manageable.

10. We find no error in the view taken by the Tribunal that the

Petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirements for selection. There

is no merit in the writ petition.

11. Dismissed.

                                               MADAN B. LOKUR, J



July 27, 2009                                  A.K. PATHAK, J
ncg


Certified that the corrected copy
of the judgment has been
transmitted in the main Server.