Delhi High Court
Aruna Meena vs Union Of India And Anr on 7 January, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: January 07, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 4724/2012
ARUNA MEENA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Dr.Chaudhary Shamsuddin
Khan, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.B.V.Niren, Advocate with
Mr. Prasouk Jain, Advocate for R.1/UOI.
Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate with Ms.Aditi
Gupta, Mr.Manoj Joshi, Advocate for R.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J.(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Vide impugned decision dated July 10, 2012, O.A. No.2234/2012
filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal.
3. Facts
are short. On September 16, 2010 UPSC issued an
advertisement inviting amongst others applications for 81 posts of Drug
Inspectors in the Central Drugs Standards Control Organization (vide
Sl.No.4) were advertised.
4. As per the advertisement in question, Essential Qualifications
prescribed for eligibility were a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical
Sciences or Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or
Microbiology from a recognized University or equivalent. The petitioner
possesses the same. The second was an experience. It was 18 months
experience in the manufacture of at least one of the substances specified in
the Schedule.
5. Part-I of the proforma of the application to be submitted by the
candidates required boxes to be filled up with numerals. It was indicated to
the candidates that the numeral „1‟ would mean „Yes‟ and the numeral „2‟
would mean „No‟.
6. With respect to the experience, Sl.No.10 (A) and 10 (B) sought
information as under:-
"10.(A) DO YOU POSSESS RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
FOR THE POST?
(Write „1‟ for Yes, „2‟ for No) (See instruction-II)
(B) IF YES, INDICATE THE LENGTH OF
EXPERIENCE AS ON CLOSING DATE."
7. In the boxes opposite Sl.No.10 (A) the petitioner filled up the
numeral „2‟ and against the boxes pertaining to Sl.No.10 (B) in which the
number of the year, the month and the day had to be filled up, the
petitioner left the boxes blank. It had to be. If pertaining to Sl.No.10(A)
the petitioner filled up the numeral „2‟ it is obvious that she informed that
she did not possess the relevant experience for the post and thus the question
for her to fill up Colum No.10 (B) does not arise.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this was a mistake. He
says it was unintentional.
9. Now, with respect to part-II of the application form, vide Sl.No.8 the
table stipulated and required to be filled (as per proforma) is as under:-
"8. Details of employment in chronological order
Office/ Post Part time/ Exact dates to Total Period Scale Nature
Instt. held Contract be given (in years) of of duties
Firm Basis/Ad- (indicate day, pay
hoc/ month & year)
Regular/
Tem./pmt
From To Years Months Days
10. The petitioner has left the same blank.
11. Now this cannot be a mistake.
12. It is apparent that while filling up the application form the petitioner
admitted not having any experience. This is the reason why she left Colum
No. 10(B) of the Part-I of the application form blank as also Column No.8 of
Part-II of the application form.
13. It is apparent that while filling the application form the petitioner
admitted not having the requisite experience and thus UPSC was fully
justified in treating the petitioner as an ineligible candidate.
14. Now the petitioner claims that one fine day she had gone to the office
of UPSC and under cover of a letter dated November 8, 2011 had submitted
the requisite experience certificate on which she now wants to rely. The
petitioner cannot do so for the reason that this was beyond the last cut off
date which was September 16, 2010. Secondly, the record of UPSC would
evidence, as per additional affidavit filed by UPSC, that such document was
never filed and is not available in the record.
15. In any case, the later aspect of the controversy which is based on fact,
need not bother us inasmuch as it is settled law that beyond the cut off date
prescribed in an advertisement, by which necessary documents and
information have to be made available; the date being sacrosanct, if by the
cut off date relevant documents are not supplied the candidate concerned not
to be treated as eligible.
16. This is the view taken by the Tribunal. We agree.
17. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
CM No.9793/2012
Since the writ petition has been dismissed the instant application
seeking issuance of interim directions to the respondent till the disposal of
the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(VEENA BIRBAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 07, 2013
skb
