Delhi High Court
Avatar Singh Narwal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 July, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date Of Decision : 13th July, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 3836/2012
AVATAR SINGH NARWAL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.D.S.Kauntae, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Jatan Singh and Mr.Tushar
Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
% PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (ORAL)
1. After having heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the respondent and having perused the relevant
records we only need to bring out the fact that the
advertisement issued inviting applications for Permanent
Commission in the Indian Army as per Annexure P-2 specified
one vacancy for candidates having educational qualifications :
Computer Science & Engg./Computer Science/M.Sc. (Computer).
We further need to bring out that the petitioner admits not
having a degree as aforesaid and instead having a Bachelors
Degree in INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY.
2. We have repeatedly asked learned counsel for the
petitioner to show any averment in the writ petition which
pleads equivalence in an I.T degree with a degree in Computer
Science & Engineering/Computer Science/M.Sc. (Computer);
and instead of responding to the query put by the Court,
counsel seeks to urge that in the past a person having I.T
W.P.(C) 3836/2012 Page 1 of 2
degree was given employment; ignoring the fact that the
advertisement issued in the past pertained to a vacancy of a
post where the incumbent was required to be possessed of a
degree in Information & Technology. Thus, this plea with
reference to a past incident is inconsequential.
3. Counsel then seeks to urge that why was the writ
petitioner called for an interview if he was not possessing the
requisite educational qualifications.
4. It is settled law that a mistake can always be
rectified. Besides, with large number of applicants applying
pursuant to advertisements, it does happen that interviews are
conducted and only those who qualify are subjected to a
scrutiny pertaining to the essential eligibility qualifications.
For example, if for 10 posts, 20,000 applicants apply, the
department may form an opinion that scrutinizing 20,000
applications would be a problem and thus may take a decision
that only those who make the mark may be subjected to the
necessary scrutiny. That apart, in matters of public
employment, a person not having the requisite eligibility
qualification cannot be directed to be appointed.
5. Finding no pleading with respect to a claim of
equivalence, the writ petition is dismissed in limine but without
any order as to costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
JULY 13, 2012
KA
