Delhi High Court
Abhijit Ghosh vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 August, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.08.2012
+ W.P.(C) 4769/2012
ABHIJIT GHOSH ... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Vinay Sabharwal.
For the Respondents : Mr Sumeet Pushkarna for UOI.
Ms Aditi Gupta for Mr Naresh Kaushik for UPSC.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2012 passed in
OA No.69/2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking a direction
to the respondent to consider the petitioner for the post of Deputy Drugs
Controller (India) in the Central Drugs Standardization Control Organization
under the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the degree of
Master's in Biomedical Engineering be taken as equivalent to the degree of
Master's in Pharmacy/Pharmacology and to direct the respondent to treat the
said two degrees accordingly.
2. These prayers had arisen in the context of the petitioner not being
considered for the post of Deputy Drugs Controller on the ground that he did
not submit a certificate of equivalence with regard to his degree of Master's
in Biomedical Engineering being equivalent to a Master's degree in
Pharmacy/Pharmacology.
3. The post of Deputy Drugs Controller was advertised by the UPSC
which, inter alia, carried the following essential qualifications:-
"QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL: A. Educational:
Master's Degree in Chemistry/Pharmaceutical Chemistry/Bio-
Chemistry/Pharmacy/Pharmacology of a recognized
University or equivalent.
B. EXPERIENCE: Twelve years experience in dealing
with problems connected with drug standardization and
control of drug standards in the manufacture of testing of
drugs.
DESIRABLE: Experience of administration of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules thereafter and/or of
manufacture and testing of drugs and/or dealing with
problems connected with Import and Export of drugs."
4. The same advertisement also carried the following specific
instructions:-
"MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFCAITONS: All
applicants must fulfill the essential requirements of the post
and other conditions stipulated in the advertisement. They are
advised to satisfy themselves before applying that they
possess at least the essential qualifications laid down for
various posts. No enquiry asking for advice as to be eligibility
will be entertained.
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-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."
Importantly, paragraph 7 of the said advertisement reads as under:-
"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 is has been so treated must be indicated."
(underlining added)
5. Upon going through the said essential features of the said
advertisement it is clear that a person who responded to the said
advertisement would be required to present the following educational
qualifications:- Master's Degree in Chemistry/ Pharmaceutical Chemistry/
Bio-Chemistry/ Pharmacy/ Pharmacology of a recognized University "or
equivalent". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner had a Master's degree in Biomedical Engineering from Jadhavpur
University which, admittedly, is a recognized University. According to the
petitioner this Master's degree in Biomedical Engineering is equivalent to a
Master's degree in Pharmacy/Pharmacology. Unfortunately for the petitioner
the conditions stipulated in paragraph 7(iii) of the said advertisement had not
been complied with by him. Paragraph 7(iii) of the said advertisement made
it absolutely clear that if the qualification possessed by the candidate was
equivalent, then the authority along with the number and date under which it
has been so treated must be indicated. This had not been done by the
petitioner inasmuch as he had not attached any certificate indicating as to
how the Master's degree in Biomedical Engineering would be equivalent to
a Master's degree in Pharmacy/Pharmacology.
6. The Tribunal has examined the submissions made by the petitioner in
detail and has also examined certain decisions of courts. Importantly the
Tribunal has noted that the petitioner did not challenge the advertisement. As
a result the petitioner had to comply with all the stipulations in the
advertisement before he could claim consideration by the UPSC. As pointed
out above, unfortunately for the petitioner he had not complied with the
stipulation indicated in paragraph 7(iii) of the said advertisement inasmuch
as he did not submit any certificate of equivalence along with his application
form. Even today the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any
such certificate.
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not comply with the clear
instructions and stipulations contained in the said advertisement, it would not
be open to the petitioner to claim consideration for the said post. The
Tribunal has correctly decided the OA filed by the petitioner. There is no
reason for us to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
AUGUST 24, 2012
mk
