Delhi High Court
Dr. Vineet Relhan vs Upsc & Another on 13 January, 2010
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13451 of 2009
Judgment reserved on: November 26, 2009
% Judgment delivered on: January 13, 2010
Dr. Vineet Relhan
S/o Shri N.D. Rellhan
R/o 35-F, Sector-7
SFS Flats, Jasola Vihar
New Delhi-110025. .... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.K. Shukla with Mr. Rajiv
Shukla, Advocates.
Versus
1. Union Public Service Commission
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069
Through its Secretary.
2. Union of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
Through its Secertary. .... Respondents
Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for
Resp. 1.
Ms. Sonia Mathur with Mr. Pankaj
Prasad, Advocates for Resp. 2.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
WP (C) No.13451/2009 Page 1 of 6
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 4 th November,
2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in
OA No. 1914/2009.
2. The Petitioner made an application in response to an
advertisement for appointment to the post of Specialist Grade-II
(Dermatology). When the Petitioner was not called for an interview, he
filed an Original Application before the Tribunal on 16th July, 2009.
3. During the pendency of the Original Application, the
Petitioner received a letter from the Respondents on 23rd July, 2009
informing him that since he had not annexed the necessary certificates,
his application form was not accepted. The certificates that the
Petitioner did not submit with the application form were:-
(i) Matriculation certificate as proof of date of birth
(ii) MBBS degree certificate and
(iii) M.D. (Dermatology) degree certificate
4. The Petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the
certificates were in fact submitted by him and the application was
received by an official of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
who spent a considerable amount of time in checking the application. It
is only thereafter that the Petitioner was given a card for being called for
an interview.
5. The UPSC contended before the Tribunal that the Petitioner
did not furnish the requisite certificates along with the application form.
6. The only way in which the issue could be sorted out by the
Tribunal was to call for the original application form, which it did. The
Tribunal noted that the Petitioner submitted the following documents
along with the application form: -
(i) published papers;
(ii) clinical trials conducted;
(iii) conferences attended and presentation done;
(iv) other academic activities; and
(v) experience certificate.
7. On a perusal of the original application form, the Tribunal
was satisfied that the documents mentioned in the letter dated 23rd July,
2009 were not submitted by the Petitioner and on this basis rejected the
original application filed by him.
8. Before us, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
the documents could have been produced by him later on and his mere
failure to submit the requisite documents at the appropriate time ought
not to have an adverse effect. In this regard, learned counsel for the
Petitioner relied upon Charles K. Skaria and others v. Dr. C. Mathew
and others, (1980) 2 SCC 752 which was followed in Dolly Chhanda v.
Chairman, JEE and others, (2005) 9 SCC 779.
9. We have perused the two decisions cited by learned counsel
for the Petitioner. It is true that the Supreme Court held that a
formalistic and ritualistic approach should not be followed in such
matters. However, in Charles K. Skaria the relevant proof of eligibility
was in fact produced by the candidates before the selection was made, as
mentioned in paragraph 20 of the Report. In Dolly Chhanda the
candidate belonged to the reserved MI category and there was some
error in the certificate issued to her as a result of which her candidature
was cancelled. This error was later rectified and under these
circumstances, the Supreme Court held that depending upon the facts of
a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof
and it would not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to
the domain of procedure.
10. In so far as the present case is concerned, there is nothing on
record to suggest that the Petitioner submitted the requisite documents
at the appropriate time. That apart, it is not as if the Petitioner is
uneducated or could not have filled the form intelligibly. He claims to
hold a degree of M.D. (Dermatology) and he ought to have been clear
about the fact that the requisite certificates must be furnished along with
the application form. For his failure to do so, the Petitioner has only
himself to blame.
11. From the counter affidavit filed before us, it appears that the
candidature of some other candidates were also rejected on the ground
that they failed to submit the requisite certificate of educational
qualifications, experience, community, etc. It has also been mentioned
in the counter affidavit that the UPSC had clearly mentioned in the
advertisement that no provisional claim would be accepted and the
requisite certificates must be filed along with the application form.
Given these facts, we are not inclined to re-open the selection process or
interfere with the impugned order.
12. Dismissed.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
January 13, 2010 MUKTA GUPTA, J
vk/kapil
Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.
