Delhi High Court
Mukesh Lata vs Union Public Service Commission ... on 28 September, 2015
$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9246/2015
% Date of Judgment : 28.09.2015
MUKESH LATA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. V. K. Tandon and Mr. Pardeep
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Ms. Megha
Singh, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 21173/2015
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9246/2015 & CM APPL. 21172/2015 (Stay)
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 29.05.2015. We may note that the
petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to set aside
the shortlisting criteria adopted by the Union Public Service
Commission for the purpose of selection by way of interviews to the
post of 'Director of Employment Exchanges' in the Ministry of
Labour and Employment.
4. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire
procedure followed by the respondents is arbitrary and not in terms of
the advertisement dated 28.09.2013 - 04.10.2013 and the Recruitment
Rules, while learned counsel for the respondents who enters
appearance on an advance copy submits that the procedure and
process adopted for shortlisting of candidates is strictly as per the
advertisement and the Recruitment Rules.
5. It is contended that the petitioner has not been shortlisted as the
respondents had placed reliance on the desirable qualification and the
benchmark had to be increased on account of large number of
candidates.
6. It is also contended that the respondents would be well within their
rights to raise the bar and in an identical issue, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of B. Ramakishenin Alias Balagandhi Vs.
Union of India and Others (2008) 1 SCC 362, more particularly, in
Para 20, has held as under :
"20. However, in this case we have noticed that in
paragraph 3.1 of the advertisement of the UPSC dated
23.5.1998, the method of short-listing has been given.
Hence the UPSC cannot resort to any other method of
short- listing other than that which has been prescribed
in paragraph 3.1. In the said paragraph of the
advertisement, it is mentioned that the Commission may
restrict the number of candidates on the basis of either
qualifications and experience higher than the minimum
prescribed in the advertisement or on the basis of the
experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the
advertisement or on the basis of experience in the
relevant field. In other words, it was open to the UPSC to
do short-listing by stating that it will call only those who
have Ph.D. degree in Agriculture (although the essential
degree was only M.Sc. degree in Agriculture). Similarly,
the UPSC could have said that it would only call for
interview those candidates who have, say, five years
experience, although the essential requirement was only
two years experience. However, experience after getting
the M.Sc. degree cannot be said to be higher than the
experience before getting the M.Sc degree. Also, the
advertisement dated 23.5.1998 does not mention that two
years experience must be after getting the M.Sc. degree."
7. At this stage, Mr. Tandon submits that the petitioner would challenge
the final selection if so advised and if such an option is available to
him in accordance with law.
8. The writ petition and pending application are dismissed as not
pressed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
sc
