Delhi High Court
Union Public Service Commission ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 25 January, 2010
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.10058/2009
Judgment reserved on: November 26, 2009
% Judgment delivered on: January 25, 2010
1. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069.
2. N. Mukherjee
Under Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Indraprastha Sachivalaya
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Secretary
Directorate of Prosecution
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Players Building ITO
Delhi-110054.
3. Praveen Kumar
S/o Shri Raghveer Singh
R/o 1288, Sector-2, Rohtak
Haryana. ...Respondents
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 1 of 25
Through: Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for
Respondent No. 3.
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9949/2009
Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Lt. Governor
Raj Niwas Marg
Delhi-110054.
2. Shefali Barnala
D/o Mr. Inderjeet Barnala
W/o Mr. Deepanshu Tandon
R/o B-452, Meera Bagh
Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063. ...Respondents
Through : Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
None for Respondent No.2.
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 2 of 25
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10059/2009
1. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069.
2. N. Mukherjee
Under Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Indraprastha Sachivalaya
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Secretary
Directorate of Prosecution
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Players Building ITO
Delhi-110054.
3. Vinay Sharma
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o 1562 Urban Estate
Jind, Haryana. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate for
Respondent No. 3.
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 3 of 25
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9962/2009
1. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069.
2. N. Mukherjee
Under Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
1. Ms. Vandana
D/o Sh. Prakash Chandra
R/o C-10, INA Colony
New Delhi.
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Indraprastha Sachivalaya
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Secretary
Directorate of Prosecution
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Players Building ITO
Delhi-110054. ...Respondents
Through : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 4 of 25
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10060/2009
Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
1. Manoj Kumar Rana
S/o Sh. Kartan Singh
House No.120, Village Nangli Puna
Delhi-110036.
2. Dharmender Singh
S/o Late Shri Om Parkash
R/o No.19, Village Kirari Sultanpuri
Delhi-110086.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Indraprastha Sachivalaya
New Delhi-110001.
4. The Secretary
Directorate of Prosecution
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Players Building ITO
Delhi-110054. ...Respondents
Through : Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
None for Respondent No.2.
Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 5 of 25
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9953/2009
Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
Chander Mohan
S/o Sh. Gyan Chand
House No.11-A, Street No.1
Vijay Nagar, Batala Road
Amritsar, Punjab. ...Respondents
Through : None
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10063/2009
Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
1. Manoj Kumar Meena
S/o Sh. Rang Lal Meena
R/o B-60, Shankar Vihar Colony
Near Sawai Gattor, Malviya Nagar
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 6 of 25
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Indraprastha Sachivalaya
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Secretary
Directorate of Prosecution
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Players Building ITO
Delhi-110054. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10062/2009
1. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069.
2. N. Mukherjee
Under Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
1. Naveen Kumar
S/o Sh. Z.S. Kundu
R/o 27, New Shanti Nagar
Model Town, Panipat, Haryana.
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 7 of 25
2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Indraprastha Sachivalaya
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Secretary
Directorate of Prosecution
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Players Building ITO
Delhi-110054. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. L.K. Garg, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11426/2009
Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
Yogesh Kumar Kahrana
S/o Ram Lal Karhana
R/o-Behind Pratap School
Mohalla Akhaypura, Alwar
Rajasthan-301001. ...Respondent
Through : Mr. Rahul Srivastava with
Ms. Anshum Jain, Advs.
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 8 of 25
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9935/2009
Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
Anima Kujur
R/o - C/o Shri Prem Prakash
H.No.590, Ground Floor
Dr. Mukherjee Nagar
New Delhi-110009. ...Respondent
Through : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9954/2009
1. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Under Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi-110069. ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Aditi
Gupta and Ms. Amita K. Chaudhary,
Advocates.
Versus
Sarika Tyagi
D/o Shri Sushil Tyagi
R/o House No.8-A, Rampuram
Meerut Road, District Muzafarnagar, U.P. ...Respondent
WP (C) No.10058/2009 & connected matters Page 9 of 25
Through : Mr. Mohan Kumar with
Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
We are dealing with a batch of 11 writ petitions directed
against similar orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. The broad issue in all these cases is the same, namely,
whether the Detailed Application Form submitted by the Respondents
(either without the required documents or the documents being in the
wrong format) for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor in the
Directorate of Prosecution, Government of NCT of Delhi ought to have
been accepted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). In our
opinion the Detailed Application Forms submitted by the Respondents
(in nine cases) were rightly rejected by the UPSC and the Tribunal erred
in setting aside the decision of the UPSC.
3. One batch of seven writ petitions is directed against the order
dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the Tribunal; the second batch consists
of three writ petitions directed against the order dated 1 st May, 2009
while the third batch consists of one writ petition directed against the
order dated 13th July, 2009 passed by the Tribunal. The main impugned
order is dated 2nd April, 2009. The other impugned orders have merely
followed this order.
4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties we took
up WP(C) No.10058/2009 as the main case. This is directed against the
order dated 2nd April, 2009.
5. The Petitioner (Union Public Service Commission - UPSC)
issued an advertisement for recruitment of 38 posts of Assistant Public
Prosecutor in the Directorate of Prosecution, Government of NCT of
Delhi. The advertisement was published in the Employment News dated
22-28 March, 2008. The essential qualification for appointment was a
degree in law of a recognized University or equivalent and three years
experience at the Bar. The advertisement is titled as "Special
Advertisement No.52/2008".
6. There are three significant facts that need to be noted from
the Special Advertisement No. 52/2008. They are: (i) the format of the
application form is given along with the advertisement, (ii) candidates
are advised to go through the instructions and additional information to
candidates for recruitment by selection given in Advertisement No.06
published in the same issue of the Employment News, (iii) a recruitment
test would be held on 3rd August, 2008 and (iv) the proformae for all the
certificates are given in the Special Advertisement.
7. It is significant to note that no certificates/documents were
required to be attached along with the application form.
8. The instructions mentioned in Advertisement No.06
particularly clause 7 thereof makes it clear that all original certificates/
documents are not required to be sent along with the application form
but are required to be produced at the time of interview.
9. Some of the other relevant instructions are as follows:
"NOTE-I: The prescribed essential qualifications are the
minimum and the mere possession of the same does not
entitle candidates to be called for interview.
NOTE-II: Where the number of applications received in
response to an advertisement is large and it will not be
convenient or possible for the Commission to Interview all
the Candidates, the Commission at their discretion may
restrict the number of Candidates, to a reasonable limit by
any or more of the following methods:
(a) On the basis of either qualifications and
experience higher than the minimum prescribed in
the advertisement; or
(b) On the basis of experience in the relevant field; or
(c) By counting experience before or after the
acquisition of essential qualifications; or
(d) By holding a screening test.
The candidate should, therefore, mention all the
qualifications and experience in the relevant field over and
above the minimum qualifications and should attach
attested/self certified copies of the Certificates in support
thereof. Note I and II under para 3 above are not applicable
to Special Advt. Nos. 51/08 and 52/08.
NOTE-III: In regard to Educational Qualifications, the mark
sheet in lieu of Educational Certificates will not be accepted
by the Commission.
NOTE-IV: The provisional claim whatsoever in regard to
eligibility to the post will not be accepted by the
Commission.
7. CERTIFICATE TO BE ATTACHED:
Candidates should note that they should attach with their
applications attested/self certified copies of the following
documents:
(i) Matriculation or equivalent certificate in support of
their declaration of age.
(ii) Degree or Diploma Certificate or other certificates in
support of their educational qualifications;
(iii) If the qualification possessed by the candidate is
equivalent, then the authority (with number and date)
under which it has been so treated must be indicated;
(iv) xxx xxx xxx
(v) A candidate who claims to belong to one of the
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes has to submit,
in support of his claim, an attested copy of a certificate
in the prescribed form issued by the competent
authority (original to be produced at the time of
interview).
(vi) A candidate who claims fee exemption being
Physically Handicapped (eligible for appointment to
the post on the basis of prescribed standards of
Medical Fitness) has to submit an attested copy of a
medical certificate issued by the Surgeon/Medical
Officer of the Government Hospital/Medical Board in
the prescribed form. (Original to be produced at the
time of interview).
The candidates claiming fee concession under this para
should produce a certificate in prescribed proforma.
(vii) A candidate who claims to belong to one of the Other
Backward Classes has to submit in support of his claim
an attested copy of a certificate in the prescribed form
issued by the competent authority specified by the
Govt. in their OM No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SC) dated
22.10.93. OBC Certificate should be issued within
one year of the closing date. Candidates may produce
the original Certificates at the time of Interview.
NOTE :I: ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE SHOULD NOT
BE SENT WITH THE APPLICATION. THESE
SHOULD BE PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF
INTERVIEW.
NOTE :II: Candidates should note that only the date of birth
recorded in the Matriculation, Higher Secondary
Examination Certificate or any equivalent certificate on the
date of submission of application, will be accepted by the
Commission. Mark Sheet, Admit card as a proof of date of
birth will not be accepted. No subsequent request for its
change will be considered or granted.
NOTE :III: If no copies of the above certificates are sent
with the application, it is liable to be rejected and no appeal
against its rejection will be entertained.
NOTE :IV: The period of experience rendered by a
candidate on part time basis, daily wages, visiting/guest
faculty will not be counted while calculating the valid
experience for short-listing the candidates for interview. [For
SPL Advt Nos. 51/08 and 52/08, the above documents are
to be produced at the time of interview]."
One of the important boxed instructions is to the effect that all the
prescribed proformae could also be down loaded from the website of the
UPSC, that is, www.upsc.gov.in. It is specifically mentioned that the
applications sent in any other format are liable to be rejected.
10. As mentioned in Special Advertisement No.52/2008, a
recruitment test was in fact held on 3 rd August, 2008. There is no
dispute that the Respondents passed the recruitment test.
11. By a letter dated 10th November, 2008 the Respondents were
informed that they had qualified the written examination for being
called for an interview. Along with that letter, a Detailed Application
Form (DAF) was enclosed. The DAF was required to be submitted by
the Respondents to the UPSC within fifteen days. A perusal of the DAF
makes it clear that it has to be sent along with all requisite certificates
and documents, the originals of which are required to be produced at the
time of interview.
12. There is no dispute about the fact that the Respondents
submitted the DAF within time but they were not called for an interview
because by a letter dated 30th December, 2008 (in all the cases) their
candidature was cancelled. The reasons given were different from
person to person and they are as follows:-
(i) LLB degree certificate not furnished. (7 Respondents)
(ii) Certificate indicating three years experience at the Bar not
furnished. (3 Respondents in 2 cases)
(iii) Matriculation certificate/Senior Secondary certificate or any
equivalent certificate not furnished as proof of date of birth. (2
Respondents)
(iv) Physically Handicapped certificate not furnished in the
prescribed format. (1 Respondent)
(v) Scheduled Tribe certificate not furnished in the prescribed
format. (2 Respondents)
(The application of two Respondents was rejected for more than
one reason).
13. We propose to deal with these grounds of rejection
separately.
14. Insofar as the failure of the Respondents to produce the LLB
degree certificate is concerned, the common explanation given by them
in all the cases is that the degree certificate was not made available by
the concerned University and, therefore, it was not furnished with the
DAF. It is submitted on their behalf that since they have been enrolled
with the Bar Council, that by itself is sufficient proof of their having
passed the LLB examination.
15. In our opinion, it is difficult to believe that the LLB degree
certificate was not issued to the Respondents for several years. It may
be mentioned that one of the requirements for the applicants is to have
three years experience at the Bar, which they all had. It is, therefore,
extremely unlikely that these Respondents did not get their LLB degree
for three years. In any event, there is no evidence of this, except their
bald averment.
16. That apart, we find that soon after the rejection of their
candidature on 30th December, 2008 these Respondents managed to
produce their LLB degree certificates within a few days. It is obvious
that these Respondents, if they were in possession of the LLB degree
certificate, did not make any effort to attach it to the DAF and took the
matter very casually until they found that their DAF was rejected. If
what these Respondents say is correct and if they did not have the LLB
degree certificate in their possession, they did not make any special
effort to obtain the LLB degree certificate despite the requirement. Nor
did these Respondents place on record any material to show the special
efforts made by them (if any), in spite of which they were unable to
obtain the LLB degree certificate.
17. We are of the opinion that these Respondents were aware
well in advance, that is, from the issue of the Employment News dated
22-28 March, 2008 that they would be required to submit the LLB
degree certificate on their passing the written examination scheduled for
3rd August, 2008. These Respondents, therefore, had sufficient time
(from March, 2008 at least till August, 2008 if not November, 2008) to
obtain their LLB degree certificate for submission along with the DAF.
These Respondents, who did not make even this minimum effort for
such a long time, have only themselves to blame for their cavalier and
casual approach.
18. These Respondents say that because they were enrolled with
the Bar Council, therefore it must be assumed that they had a valid LLB
degree certificate. This is neither here nor there. There was no
requirement for a candidate to attach the proof of enrolment with the
Bar Council. Consequently, if an applicant attached such a document,
the UPSC was not obliged to take note of it. What was required to be
attached was a valid LLB degree certificate, nothing more or less.
19. We also find that exactly a similar situation exists with
regard to other certificates required to be produced by some other
Respondents such as the Scheduled Tribe certificate, Physically
Handicapped certificate and Matriculation certificate. In all these cases,
the Respondents had adequate time (from March, 2008 till November,
2008) to have their certificates ready in the prescribed proforma but they
chose to take it easy and woke up only when their DAF was rejected.
20. As a result of the rejection of their DAF, the Respondents
preferred Original Applications before the Central Administrative
Tribunal or writ petitions before this Court (which then transferred the
petitions to the Tribunal) challenging the rejection of the DAF. By an
interim order, the UPSC was directed to interview the Respondents on a
provisional basis. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the
applications were allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned orders as
mentioned above.
21. The UPSC has challenged the orders passed by the Tribunal
and the question before us is whether it was appropriate for the Tribunal
to have asked the UPSC to consider the candidature of the Respondents
even though their DAF was incomplete.
22. At this stage it may be mentioned that in respect of two of the
writ petitions, that is, WP(C) No.9962/2009 and WP(C) No.10060/2009,
the only ground of rejection of the candidature was that these
Respondents did not produce a certificate stating that they had three
years experience at the Bar. Before the Tribunal as well as before us it
was conceded by learned counsel for the UPSC that this was not a valid
ground for rejection of their candidature. Consequently, insofar as
WP(C) No. 9962/2009 and WP(C) No.10060/2009 filed by the UPSC
are concerned, they have to be dismissed and we do so accordingly. The
UPSC should forthwith declare their result.
23. As far as the other writ petitions are concerned, the
submission of learned counsel for the Respondents is that in any case all
the documents were produced by them when they went for the interview
and, therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the UPSC who should
have accepted the DAF.
24. In this context, it is necessary to note a few facts. The UPSC
stated on affidavit before the Tribunal that in response to the
advertisement they received as many as 3011 applications which is
roughly about 90 applications per post. Out of all these applicants 2765
were admitted for the written examination for which 1885 actually
appeared. The total number of candidates who qualified for the
interview was 134.
25. With such a large number of DAFs having been received by
the UPSC, it is impracticable to expect the UPSC to give a go by to the
instructions that have categorically and specifically been mentioned in
the advertisements issued by it. It is one thing to say that procedure is a
handmaid of justice but it is another thing, in practical life, to give
procedure a complete go by for the sake of accommodating a few
people. If this is done, then there would be no obligation on anybody to
follow any procedure resulting in a completely unmanageable situation.
26. If the submission made by learned counsel for the
Respondents is placed on a larger canvas (since the UPSC conducts
dozens of such examinations annually), one can well imagine the
resultant chaos. For example, it is well known that the UPSC receives
lakhs of applications for the Central Civil Services Examination. If
every such applicant submits an incomplete application, that is to say
that the relevant information is not submitted along with the application,
the processing time for the UPSC would take several months and would,
in the long run, be completely counterproductive. Consequently, in our
opinion while it is true that procedure is the handmaid of justice, it is not
possible to ignore practical difficulties that may arise in a given case.
27. The present case is such a case where, because of a very
large number of applications received by the UPSC, if it is compelled to
accept procedurally incomplete applications, there would be serious
practical difficulties that it would have to encounter and this may very
well lead to a break down in the system. We also cannot overlook the
fact that the applicants/Respondents are all highly educated persons
claiming to have an LLB degree and three years experience at the Bar.
Therefore, it must be assumed that they fully understood the contents of
the advertisements and the DAF. There was a duty cast on them to
correctly fill up the DAF and they cannot be allowed to contend that
despite this, their application should be accepted even if it is incomplete
only because procedure is the handmaid of justice.
28. The matter may be looked at from another point of view.
The UPSC has rejected the candidature of 45 persons due to non-
submission of the required documents and/or submission of documents
in the wrong format. If any relief is granted to the Respondents before
us, surely it would be appropriate to grant a similar relief to other
similarly placed candidates, some of whom may not have approached
the Tribunal for relief. If this exercise were to be undertaken, perhaps
the entire examination would require to be cancelled. In our opinion
this is neither in the interest of the candidates who have qualified nor is
it in the public interest to cancel the entire examination for the sake of
accommodating a few persons, such as the Respondents.
29. The facts of this case are singular and we are of the opinion
that given the very large number of applications received and the
number of candidates involved, we must give the benefit of the
necessity of sticking to procedural requirements to the UPSC.
30. It is true that it has been held in Charles K. Skaria and
Others v. Dr. C. Mathew and Others, (1980) 2 SCC 752 that a
formalistic and ritualistic approach should not always be followed. But
in that case as noted in paragraph 11 of the Report the controversy was
only with respect to three seats and six contenders. In the case that we
are dealing with, the large number of contenders in the "musical chair
scenario" runs into a couple of thousand. Therefore, Charles K. Skaria
has no application to the facts of this case.
31. For the above reasons we allow all the writ petitions filed by
the UPSC except WP(C) No.9962/2009 and WP(C) No.10060/2009.
The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the remaining
nine writ petitions are set aside.
32. There will be no order as to costs.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
January 25, 2010 MUKTA GUPTA, J
vk
Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.
