Vineet Godhal And Ors vs Uoi And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2176 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 6020/2010               Date of decision: 25th April, 2011.

       VINEET GODHAL AND ORS               ..... Petitioner
                   Through   Mr. Ashish Dholakia and Mr.
                             Akashdeep Kakkar, Advocates.

                    versus

       UOI AND ORS                                 ..... Respondent
                             Through   Mr. Jayendra, Adv. for R-1.
                                       Mrs. Rekha Palli and Mrs. Amrita
                                       Prakash, Advocates for R-2.
                                       Mr. S.M. Arif, Advocate for R-3.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                              ORDER

%

The petitioners herein, four in number, are holders of Post Graduate

Diploma in Archaeology (PGDA, for short). The said diploma is conducted

by the Institute of Archaeology every year and persons having Master‟s

Degree either in Archaeology or History of Anthropology are eligible. The

selection is done through all India level entrance examination for 15 seats

by written and oral examination process.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the amendments made to the

recruitment rule for the post of Assistant Archaeologist in Archaeological

Survey of India (ASI, for short) as PGDA is no longer mandatory essential

qualification but a desirable qualification. Their grievance is that the un-

amended recruitment rule for the post of Assistant Archaeologist in which

PGDA was an essential qualification was just, fair and equitable and has

been wrongly amended resulting in discrimination. It is alleged that the

amended rule is arbitrary as for further promotion; an Assistant

Archaeologist is required to have PGDA.

3. The post of Assistant Archaeologist is General Central Service

Group „B‟ non-Gazetted non-Ministerial post. It is the lowest rung in the

hierarchy and all posts of Assistant Archeologist are filled by direct

recruitment.

4. Archaeological Survey of India (Assistant Archaeologist)

Recruitment Rules, 1993 were framed under the proviso to Articles 309 of

the Constitution. These Rules were partly modified in the year 2006 on

certain aspects.

5 The essential qualifications required for appointment to the post of

Assistant Archaeologist prior to amendment in 2006 were as under:-

"Un-amended Rules Assistant Archaeologist:

Essential:

Master Degree in Ancient or Medieval India History from a recognized university or equivalent. M.A. or M.Sc with Archaeology or Anthropology from a recognized University or equivalent. Post-Graduate

Diploma in Archaeology from the Institute of Archaeology of the Archaeological Survey of India or equivalent.

Note 1: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Staff Selection Commission in case of candidates otherwise well qualified.

Desirable:

Experience in the Archaeological field work for a minimum period of one year."

6. These Rules were amended vide Gazette Notification dated 3rd

October, 2006 and as a result of amendment the essential and desirable

requirements for appointment to the post of Assistant Archaeologist

underwent a change. The amended Rules read as under:-

"Amended Rule:

"EQ: (i) Master‟s Degree in Indian History with Ancient Indian History or Medieval Indian History as a subject or Master Degree in Archaeology or Anthropology with Stone-age Archaeology as a subject or Master Degree in Geology with Pleistocene Geology as a subject from a recognized University or equivalent;

OR

(ii) Master Degree in Sanskrit or Pali or Arabic or Prakrit or Persian or Tamil or Telugu or Malayalam or Kannada or History of Art with Ancient or Medieval Indian History as a subject from a recognized University or equivalent.

D.Q: (I) Any higher qualification in the subject mentioned under essential qualification namely (i) Junior Research Fellowship or senior Research Fellowship or M.Phil or Ph. D. from a recognized University or equivalent.

(ii) Post Graduate Diploma in Archaeology from Archaeological Survey of India or Diploma in Epigraphy or Archaeology or Museology of a recognized University

or equivalent.

(iii) 1 year field experience in Archaeology."

7. On 22nd August, 2009, the respondent advertised for recruitment of

54 posts of Assistant Archaeologist, under the amended Rules. The

petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Archeologist, but were not

short-listed. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed an original

application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

Delhi being OA No.2594/2010. It has been dismissed by the impugned

order dated 1st September, 2010. It may be noted here that before the

Tribunal the question of age bar was raised but the said question has not

been raised before us.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon minutes of the

meeting dated 22nd July, 2004 has submitted that the persons selected,

before their appointment have to undergo and should be in possession of

PGDA. Our attention in this regard was drawn to Annexure A-10.

9. The contention of the petitioner does not have merit. Annexure A-10

records minutes of meeting as the amendment to the Rules was being

considered. The amended recruitment rule to the post of Assistant

Archaeologist has been quoted above. The aforesaid recruitment rule does

not require that the candidate should have PGDA on the date of

appointment. PGDA is a desirable qualification but not an essential

qualification. Thus, in the minutes it was suggested that the candidate

should before appointment have PGDA, but the said suggestion has not

been accepted and did not get incorporated in the amended recruitment

Rule.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Sanjay Kumar

Manjul vs. Chairman, UPSC and Others (2006) 8 SCC 42 has submitted

that there is difference between degree in Archaeology and degree in

Epigraphy. It is, accordingly, submitted that the amended Rule prescribing

eligibility norms and making a candidate with Master‟s degree in Sanskrit,

Pali, Arabic, Prakrit, Persian, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada

eligible should be struck down is arbitrary and discriminatory. There is no

merit in the said contention also. What should be the essential qualification

is a matter in the Executive domain, though, it has legislative contour. It is

not for the Court to sit in judgment and decide that what should be the

eligibility criteria. Per se, and ex facie, it cannot be said that the eligibility

criteria fixed in the amended Rule is arbitrary or discriminatory and,

therefore, Article 14 of the Constitution is violated. This Court while

exercising power of judicial review cannot substitute its own judgment and

examine the amended recruitment rule on merits.

11. Sanjay kumar Manjul (supra) case, is distinguishable. The Supreme

Court in the said case was examining whether experience in Epigraphy can

be considered as field experience in Archaeology. In that context, the

Supreme Court examined the difference between Archaeology and

Epigraphy. The said decision was with reference to the applicable

recruitment rules. The said issue and aspect is not relevant in the present

case. It cannot be said that the respondents do not have right to decide the

eligibility norms or qualifications for recruitment to the post of Assistant

Archaeologist and whether or not the candidate with Post Graduate Degree

in Epigraphy should be eligible. In Dilip Kumar Garg vs. State of U.P.

(2009) 4 SCC 73, it has been held:

"15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administration impossible. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. (See Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand.)

16. The decision to treat all Junior Engineers, whether degree-holders or diploma-holders, as equals for the purpose of promotion is a policy decision, and it is well settled that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy decisions unless there is clear violation of some constitutional provision or the statute. We find no such violation in this case.

17. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India it has been held that there should be judicial restraint in administrative decision. This principle will apply all the more to a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution."

12. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, we do not find any merit in the

present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 25, 2011 NA