Delhi High Court
Union Public Service Commission vs Neelam Yadav on 5 May, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.9934/2009 & CM No.8209 /2009
% Date of Decision: 05.05.2010
Union Public Service Commission .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Naresh Kaushik & Ms.Aditi Gupta,
Advocates.
Versus
Neelam Yadav .... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner, Union Public Service Commission has impugned
the order dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.204 of 2009, titled as
„Neelam Yadav v. Union Public Service Commission‟ whereby the
Original Application of the respondent was allowed and directing the
petitioner to interview the respondent and publish the result of the
respondent and in case, the respondent qualifies in interview, she
would be considered for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor.
By order dated 2nd April, 2009, besides the O.A.No.204 of 2009,
other Original Applications of the similar applicants as respondents
were also disposed of being numbered O.A.No.20 of 2009; O.A.No.48 of
2009; O.A.No.49 of 2009; O.A.No.50 of 2009; O.A.No.51 of 2009 &
O.A.No.59 of 2009 & O.A.No.60 of 2009.
The order dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the Tribunal was
impugned by the petitioner in the W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2009 which was
disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25th
January, 2010 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of
the Tribunal dated 2nd April, 2009, which is impugned by the petitioner
in the present writ petition also.
While allowing the writ petition, the Court had categorically dealt
with the contentions of the respondent that since she was enrolled with
the Bar Council, therefore, she must assumed to have LL.B. Degree
certificate, though the same was not produced by the respondent. The
observations of the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2009 in para
18 are as under:-
" These respondents say that because they were enrolled
with the Bar Council, therefore, it must be assumed that
they had a valid LL.B. degree certificate. This is neither
here nor there. There was no requirement for a candidate to
attach the proof of enrollment 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 LL.B. degree certificate,
nothing more or less."
In the case of respondent, this cannot be disputed that the
respondent did not attach a valid LL.B. degree certificate, and
consequently, the respondent did not fulfill the criteria for applying for
the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the order of the Tribunal
directing the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent and
allowing her to appear in interview, and in case, she qualifies the
interview to select her for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor,
therefore cannot be sustained. There was no requirement for submitting
the certificate from Bar Council and submitting the certificate of
registration with Bar Council would not cure the defect of not
submitting the degree of LL.B as was contemplated in the application
form.
Therefore, for foregoing reasons, and reasons detailed in the
W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2009 which was also against the order dated 2nd
April, 2009 which is impugned by the petitioner before this Court, the
writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed
by the Tribunal dated 2nd April, 2009 in O.A.No.204 of 2009 is set
aside. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are
however, left to bear their own cost.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MAY 05, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'VK'
