Delhi High Court
Vikas Kumar vs Upsc on 13 May, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No. 3279/2010
% Date of Decision: 13.05.2010
Vikas Kumar .... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.N. Tirupati, Advocate
Versus
UPSC .... Respondent
Through Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate
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 NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th April, 2010
passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, dismissing
his petition in limini seeking to set aside the order dated 23rd March,
2010 passed by the respondents by which his candidature for
appointment to the post of Dy. Director (Administration/Insurance/
Training etc.) in the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) had
been cancelled.
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer
in September, 1997 in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 and is working at
Collectorate Compound, Ghaziabad. According to the petitioner, he is
working on a supervisory post as he has supervised record keepers,
patwaris, lekhpals and peons etc.
71 posts of Deputy Directors of ESIC were advertised on 9-15th
May, 2009 and the petitioner applied for the said post. The petitioner
appeared in the written examination held on 9th August, 2009 and
thereafter, he received the order dated 23rd March, 2010 whereby his
candidature was cancelled.
The order dated 23rd March, 2010 was challenged by the
petitioner contending, inter alia, that the eligibility criteria mentioned in
the advertisement did not indicate pay scale as the criteria for the post.
It was further asserted that in any case, the petitioner had been
working in a responsible capacity for more than five years and
therefore, his candidature could not be cancelled.
The Tribunal after considering the pleas raised on behalf of the
petitioner, relied on OAs bearing Nos. 2894/2000 and 2935/2000 in
the matter of Ashutosh Giri & Ors. Vs. UPSC & Another and held that
short listing is permissible especially when the number of candidates
may be far more than to commensurate to the posts that may be
available. The Tribunal also noted that the eligibility criteria provided in
the advertisement was as per Recruitment Rules and short listing of the
candidates on the basis of what would be a `responsible capacity' will
not amount to change of the Recruitment Rules.
The Tribunal noticed that in order dated 23rd March, 2001, it
was categorically stipulated that any person in the pay scale of Rs.
5500-9000 (revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade pay of Rs.
4200/-) and having minimum experience of 4½ years and above in a
supervisory capacity is to be treated as having experience in
`responsible capacity' and since the petitioner lacked the experience in
the 'responsible capacity' that is why he was not liable to be selected
and cancellation of his candidature cannot be interfered with.
The criteria of short listing adopted by the respondent cannot
be doubted or can be construed to be contrary to the Recruitment
Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not shown any
precedent or any Rule on the basis of which it can be inferred that the
criteria of short listing on the basis of experience in the `responsible
capacity' can be termed to be illegal. Similarly, if no malafides have
been imputed and if UPSC is of the opinion that the post held by the
petitioner could not be said to be in a `responsible capacity', the Court
would not substitute the said opinion by its own opinion or criteria as
to what is 'responsible capacity'.
This is also not disputed that the petitioner is not in the pay
scale of Rs. 5500-9000 (revised to Rs. 9300-34800+ Grade pay Rs.
4200/-) as he is in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 (revised
to Rs. 5200-20,000). He was not working in the `responsible capacity',
therefore, the petitioner cannot impugn the decision of the respondents
cancelling his candidature on account of short listing criteria.
In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
not been able to make out any such illegality or irregularity or such
perversity in the order of the Tribunal which may necessitate any
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is without any merit in the facts and
circumstances of the case and it is therefore dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
MAY 13, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'
