Delhi High Court
Tribhuwan Kirti Bhardwaj vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 August, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on -24.07.2018.
Date of Decision-09.08.2018.
+ W.P.(C) 8311/2017 & C.M. No.24185/2017 (for stay)
TRIBHUWAN KIRTI BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Harvinder Oberoi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with
Mr.Vikramditya Singh, Adv.
for UOI.
Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Adv. for
UPSC.
+ W.P.(C) 10443/2017 & C.M. Nos.22929/2018 (by respondent
No.1 for directions), 42659/2017 (for stay)
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Adv.
versus
DEEPTI BHARDWAJ AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rupinder Singh, Sr. Adv.
with Mr.Varun Khanna &
Mr.Anant Singh, Advs. for R-1.
+ W.P.(C) 1490/2018 & C.M. No.6126/2018 (for stay)
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Adv.
versus
WP (C) No.8311/2017 & connected matters Page 1 of 18
JITENDRA KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh, Advs. for
R-1.
Mr.Ravi Prakash, CGSC with
Mr.Farman Ali & Mr.Nitish
Gupta, Advs. for R-2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
JUDGMENT
REKHA PALLI, J
1. The present batch of writ petitions impugn a common order
dated 08.09.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA Nos.2101/2014 and 2084/2014.
While WP (C) No.8311/2017 has been preferred by the applicant who
was unsuccessful before the Tribunal, the other two petitions, being
WP (C) No.10443/2017 & 1409/2018, have been preferred by Union
Public Service Commission, the respondent before the Tribunal being
aggrieved by the grant of relief to two applicants by the Tribunal who
have been arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.(C)
No.10443/2017. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being
referred to as per their original position in W.P.(C) No.10443/2017.
2. Vide the common impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the
petitioner /UPSC to include the name of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in
the list of candidates shortlisted for appointment to the post of Senior
Administrative Officer Grade-I (hereinafter referred to as 'SAO Gr.-
I') and declare their results. The Tribunal has further directed that in
case the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are found to be in the merit position,
consequential orders for their selection be passed by the
petitioner/UPSC and the requisite recommendations be forwarded to
the appointing authority, i.e., Defence Research and Development
Organization for their appointment to the said post. However, while
allowing the claim of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Tribunal has
declined relief to the respondent No.3, who claims to be similarly
placed as the respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal are that the
petitioner/UPSC issued an advertisement inviting applications for the
post of SAO Gr.-I and SAO Gr.-II in the Defence Research &
Development Organisation (hereinafter referred to as 'DRDO').
Pursuant to the said advertisement, while respondent No.1 applied for
both the aforesaid posts, respondent Nos.2 and 3 applied only for the
post of SAO Gr.-I. Based on a combined computer based recruitment
test for both the posts as held on 05.01.2014, the petitioner/UPSC on
17.02.2014, issued a list of 36 candidates shortlisted for the interview.
The names of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were included in the said list
and they were required to furnish self attested documents/certificates
along with an online application form, which they duly furnished.
Thereafter, the petitioner/UPSC issued another notice dated
25.04.2014, shortlisting 49 more candidates for the interview.
4. While the respondent Nos.1 & 2 were waiting to be called for
the interview, which was the final stage of the selection process, the
scrutiny of the documents submitted by the shortlisted candidates was
completed and the petitioner/UPSC issued the final list of candidates
selected for the interview on 06.06.2014. Though the respondent
Nos.1 & 2 were earlier shortlisted, their names were not included in
the final list and vide letter dated 09.06.2014, they were both informed
that their candidature for the post of SAO Gr.-I had been cancelled as
they were found to be lacking the essential educational
qualifications/experience required for the post.
5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature, respondent
No.1 preferred OA No.2101/2014 before the Tribunal, while
respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred a joint OA No.2084/2014. Vide
orders dated 20.06.2014 and 24.06.2014, the Tribunal, by way of
interim relief, permitted all the three respondents to provisionally
appear in the interview which was held on 25.06.2014.
6. The common plea of all the three respondents before the
Tribunal was that even though they fulfilled the educational
qualifications and had over six years of administrative work
experience in a government/semi government organization of repute,
as was required under the advertisement, the petitioner/UPSC had
arbitrarily rejected their candidature and that too without assigning
any specific reason, by merely stating that they were found to be
lacking the essential qualifications/experience.
7. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner/UPSC while
opposing the OA, had argued before the Tribunal that being a
specialized Commission, it was vested with the power to devise its
own just and equitable modes of functioning and procedures and was
therefore, entitled to make reasonable classifications of various
applicants on the basis of their qualifications and experience, the same
being an integral part of its internal recruitment process. The
petitioner/UPSC contended that the candidature of the respondents had
been rightly rejected since all of them fell short of the requisite
experience, as per the criteria adopted by it. It was also stated that the
relevance of prior work experience of the candidates was to be seen in
the context of the duties attached to the post of SAO Gr.-I. Counsel
for the petitioner/UPSC had thus urged before the Tribunal that once it
had come to a conclusion that the respondents were falling short of the
requisite administrative work experience of 6 years, as required under
the recruitment rules, the Tribunal should not interfere with the said
finding.
8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, after
opining that the only issue that needed to be decided was whether the
respondents (applicants before Tribunal) possessed the requisite
experience for the post of SAO Gr.- I, the Tribunal went on to record
the experience of each of the three respondents in a tabulation being
reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-
A. Deepti Bhardwaj (Respondent No.1 in W.P.(C) No.10443/2017)
General Experience
1. Job Capacity/ Post Held- Executive Assistant
2. Kind of Experience - Parliament Standing Committee work
3. Experience date from 05.06.2007 to 22.05.2010.
Field of Organization/ Pay Organization/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/Nature duties
(Major)/ of Performed
Specialization Appointment
All works Lok Sabha Drafting of
related to Secretariat Questionnaire,
Standing list of Points
Committee of for
Lok Sabha Lok Sabha Discussion,
Secretariat Secretariat Reports and
Parliament Action Taken
Street, New Reports,
Delhi- Laying of
110001 reports and
Final Action
Taken
Statements in
the House and
all works
related to
working of the
Parliamentary
Standing
Committee.
Kind of Experience- Administration
Experience date: From 23.05.2010 to 30.06.2012
Worked at Supervisor level/Management level/
Head of Branch: Supervisory Level
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Type Name Nature of Performed
Specialisation Appointment
Training (Central International Training
Government) Centre for Coordinator
Govt. Information for
Systems and International
Audit and National
Trainings.
Administratio
n and
Liasioning for
the
management
of Courses
and Facilities
Administration ICISA, O/o
the CAG of
India, A-52
Sec-62,
Noida, UP-
201307
Note: Work Experience till 30.06.2012 is inadmissible as qualifying work experience on
account of not being in consonance with the duties to be performed by the post of Senior
Administrative Officer Grade- I.
Job Capacity/ Post Held- Executive Assistant
Kind of Experience - Administration
Experience date from 01.07.2012 to 05.08.2012
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Personnel and Autonomous Lok Sabha To deal with
Establishment Secretariat, work relating
matters Parliament to
Representations Street, New administration,
Delhi- personnel,
110001 establishment
and other
service related
matters of the
gazette
officers of Lok
Sabha Sect. to
deal with
representation
and RTI
related matters
Job Capacity/ Post Held- Senior Executive Assistant
Kind of Experience - Administration
Experience date from 06.08.2012 to 13.06.2013
Field of Organization/ Pay Organization/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Personnel and Autonomous Lok Sabha To deal with
Establishment Secretariat work relating
matters to
Lok Sabha administration,
Secretariat, personnel,
Parliament establishment
Street, New and other
Delhi-110001 service related
matters of the
gazette
officers of Lok
Sabha Sect. to
deal with
representation
and RTI
related matters
Total Experience: 6 years 0 Months 9 days
B. Jitendra Kumar (Respondent No.1 in W.P.(C) No.1490/2018)
General Experience
1. Job Capacity/ Post Held- Assistant Audit Officer
2. Kind of Experience - Administration
3. Experience date: From 03.01.2003 to 13.06.2013
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Administration (Central Selection and
and Audit Government) deployment of
Govt. personnel.
Formation of
teams.
Preparation
and detailed
execution of
Plan. held
meetings,
Marketing
profiles,
databse of
autitees.
Administrative
and Technical
inspection.
Establishment
audit of
various
organizations.
Audit of
contracts.
General
supervision of
staff. Returns,
training and
staff welfare
Total Experience: 10 years 5 months 11 days.
C. Tribhuwan Kirti Bhardwaj (respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) No.10443/2017) and
Petitioner in WP (C) No.8311/2017
General Experience
1. Job Capacity/ Post Held- Executive Officer P.
Kind of Experience - Administration
Experience date from 30.10.1998 to 05.09.2002.
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Audit and (Central Audit of
Accounts Government) Administrative
Govt. functions and
certification of
accounts of
the auditee
offices
2. Job Capacity/ Post Held- Auditor
Kind of Experience - Administration
Experience date from 06.09.2002 to 27.01.2005.
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Audit and (Central Audit of
Accounts Government) Administrative
Govt. functions and
certification of
accounts of
the auditee
offices
3. Job Capacity/ Post Held- Section Officer
Kind of Experience - Administration
Experience date from 28.01.2005 to 31.12.2005.
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Audit and (Central Audit of
Accounts Government) Administrative
Govt. functions and
certification of
accounts of
the auditee
offices
4. Job Capacity/ Post Held- Assistant Audit Officer
Kind of Experience - Administration
Experience date from 01.01.2006 to 24.04.2012.
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Audit and (Central Audit of
Accounts Government) Administrative
Govt. functions and
certification of
accounts of
the auditee
offices
5. Job Capacity/ Post Held- Accounts Officer
Kind of Experience - Administration
Experience date from 25.04.2012 to 05.09.2012.
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Audit and (Central Administrative
Accounts Government) and Accounts
Govt. functions of
TDSAT
6. Job Capacity/ Post Held- Assistant Audit Officer
Kind of Experience - Appraisal
Experience date from 06.09.2012 to 13.06.2013.
Field of Organization/ Pay Organisation/ Employment Nature of
Experience Institute Type Scale Institute Type/ Duties
(Major)/ Name Nature of Performed
Specialization Appointment
Audit and (Central Audit of
Accounts Government) Administrative
Govt. functions and
certification of
accounts of
the auditee
offices
Total experience: 14 years 7 months 15 days
9. After noticing the experience of each of the three respondents
as recorded in the table above, the Tribunal referred to the
Recruitment Rules as also the conditions prescribed in the
advertisement for deciding as to whether they had the requisite
administrative work experience and came to a conclusion that the
petitioner/UPSC had acted in an arbitrary manner thereby vitiating
the very process of consideration for shortlisting candidates for the
interview. The Tribunal opined that the petitioner/UPSC had
erroneously ignored the work experience of the respondent No.1 for
the period between 05.06.2007 and 30.06.2012 as also the
respondent no.2's entire work experience, which was not only
administrative in nature, but was also in-tune with the nature of
duties attached to the post of SAO Gr.-I. The Tribunal thus came to
a conclusion that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 possessed the requisite
administrative experience of six years and allowed their OAs, while
dismissing the O.A. of the respondent No.3 by holding that the
experience possessed by him did not conform to the nature of duties
attached to the post of SAO Gr.-I.
10. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/UPSC before us, besides reiterating the pleas taken before
the Tribunal, contended that the impugned order has erroneously
directed the UPSC to consider the entire work experience of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 as being valid administrative experience for
the post of SAO Gr.-I, by ignoring the vital fact that the experience
of the candidates has to be seen in consonance with the duties
attached to the post of SAO Gr.-I, which none of the respondents
possessed and therefore, they were rightly found to be lacking in the
requisite experience by the petitioner/UPSC. He submitted that the
work experience possessed by the respondent No. 1 from
05.06.2005 to 22.05.2010 as an Executive Assistant in the Lok
Sabha Secretariat, could not be classified as an administrative
experience qua the post of SAO Gr.-I. Similarly, the work done by
her from 23.05.2010 to 30.06. 2012, when the respondent no.3 was
on deputation with the 'International Centre For Information
System and Audit', did not have any connection with administrative
duties and was rightly excluded by the petitioner/UPSC.
11. Mr. Kaushik further stated that the work experience of the
respondent no.2 was primarily concerned with audit of accounts in
the Indian Audit & Accounts Department (IA&A) and could not at
all be treated as an administrative experience, as required for the
post of SAO Gr.-I. He thus, urged that the Tribunal has erroneously
held that the work experience possessed by the respondent nos.1 &
2 ought to be considered as an administrative experience, even
though the nature of the duties performed by them clearly suggests
otherwise.
12. On the other hand, Mr.Suri, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondent no.1/Deepti Bhardwaj, while
supporting the impugned judgment, contended that the
petitioner/UPSC had ignored the fact that from the very day of the
respondent no.1's joining the Lok Sabha Secretariat as a Senior
Executive Assistant, she had been discharging several
administrative functions and, therefore, there was no reason for the
petitioner/UPSC to have ignored her administrative experience for
five long years from 05.6.2007 to 30.6.2012, in the Lok Sabha
Secretariat and in the International Centre for Information System
& Audit. Learned Senior Counsel thus argued that the Tribunal was
fully justified in holding that the respondent no.1 possessed the
requisite administrative experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I.
13. Similarly, Mr.Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent no.2/Jitender Kumar, submitted that the
vast experience gained by the respondent no.2 while discharging
administrative functions in the IA&AD had been erroneously
ignored by the petitioner/UPSC under the mistaken notion that he
was carrying out only audit duties in the IA&AD. He clarified that
at IA&AD, the respondent no.2 was engaged in the task of
planning, coordinating and supervisory duties and had also been
nominated to conduct administrative and technical inspections of
various offices and therefore, canvassed that he possessed valid
administrative experience as required, for being appointed as an
SAO Gr.-I.
14. On the other hand, Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, appearing on
behalf of the respondent no.3/Tribhuvan Kirti Bhardwaj, while
impugning the Tribunal's order rejecting the respondent no.3's
claim, argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the
respondent no.3 does not have the requisite administrative work
experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I, on an erroneous assumption
that his work experience in the IA&AD was only in the field of
accounts and audit. She submitted that while coming to the
aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal failed to appreciate a vital fact
that the experience certificates of the respondent nos.1 and 2 were
identical and the respondent no.3 had also undertaken
administrative duties while being posted in the IA&AD. She
submitted that IA&AD does not have a separate set of employees
for discharging administrative functions and it is for this reason that
the respondent no.3, just like respondent no.2 was performing
administrative duties while posted in IA&AD. She thus, prayed that
the impugned order of the Tribunal, be quashed to the extent that it
has held that the respondent no.3 does not have the requisite
administrative work experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I.
15. Before we deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it
may be appropriate to refer to the experience required for the post
of SAO Gr.-I & SAO Gr.-II, as prescribed in the advertisement. For
the sake of convenience, the relevant extracts of the said
advertisement are reproduced herein below:-
"
Qualification:
Essential : Educational - Degree of a recognized University
Experience : Six years' administrative experience in a Government
or Semi Government Organisation or Commercial Organisation of repute.
Desirable :(i) Diploma in Personnel Management from a recognized
Institution.
(ii) Working Experience in Scientific or Industrial or Technical
organization or Departments
Qualification:
Essential : Educational - Degree of a recognized University
Experience : Three years' experience of Administration, Establishment
and Accounts work.
Desirable: (i) Diploma in Personnel Management or Industrial
Relation from a recognized Institution.
(ii) Working Experience in Scientific or Industrial or
Technical organization or Departments"
16. A perusal of the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post of
SAO Gr.-I shows that, while the kind of organisation was clearly
specified by the petitioner/UPSC in its advertisement, the same is
conspicuously silent in respect of the nature of administrative
experience required for the post of SAO Gr.-I. Once nothing was
specified qua the nature of the administrative experience that was
required, there was absolutely no reason for the petitioner/UPSC to
have excluded the respondent no.1's administrative experience in
the Lok Sabha Secretariat, when she was posted with the
Parliamentary Standing Committee and was entrusted with several
administrative duties, including coordinating with senior officers of
various ministries of the Government of India as also planning and
coordinating with various officers of State Governments and Public
Sector Undertakings. Hence, excluding the respondent no.1's
administrative experience in the Lok Sabha Secretariat was wholly
unjustified and cannot be sustained. In our considered view, there is
no infirmity in the Tribunal's finding that the respondent no.1's
experience from 05.06.2007 to 30.06.2012 at the Lok Sabha
Secretariat and in the International Centre for Information Systems
& Audit was in fact an administrative experience and ought to have
been taken into consideration by the petitioner/UPSC while
examining her eligibility for the post of SAO Gr.-I.
17. Similarly, when we examine the experience of the respondent
no.2, we find no reason to differ with the view of the Tribunal that
besides carrying out audit activities in IA&AD, he was also
performing administrative duties. Even otherwise, once there is no
denial by the petitioner/UPSC to the fact that IA&AD does not
have any separate administrative staff, there was no justification for
discarding the experience certificate issued by the IA&AD
certifying that respondent no.2 was discharging administrative
duties at the IA&AD. In our view, there was no reason for the
petitioner/UPSC to have ignored the respondent no.2's
administrative experience in the IA&AD.
18. We also do not find any merit in Mr.Kaushik's plea that the
Tribunal, in exercise of its powers of judicial review, ought not to
have interfered with the Petitioner/UPSC's finding that the work
experience of the respondent no.1, as also of the respondent no.2,
was not administrative in nature. We are of the opinion that merely
because UPSC is a specialised body, an arbitrary and wholly
whimsical decision taken by it cannot be scrutinized and corrected
in judicial review.
19. Now coming to the claim of the respondent no.3, who has
been denied relief by the Tribunal, having carefully examined the
experience certificate of the respondent no.3 relating to his work
experience in the IA&AD, we find merit in Ms.Oberoi's
submission that respondent no.3's administrative experience in the
IA&AD was identical to that of respondent no.2 in IA&AD. It is
interesting to note that the experience certificates of the respondent
nos.2 and 3 describe the duties performed by them while working
in IA&AD, in exactly identical terms as extracted hereinbelow:-
"Selection and deployment of personnel. Formation
of teams. Preparation and detailed execution of
annual plan. Administrative and technical inspection
of officers under control of Director General. Vetting
of reports. Held meetings, maintained profiles, data
base etc. of audited entities. Establishment audit of
various organisations. Audit of contracts. General
supervision of staff. Returns, trainings and staff
welfare activities."
20. In the light of the aforesaid description of duties performed by
both, respondent no.2 & respondent no.3, while working on the
same post (i.e., Assistant Audit Officer), in the same office (i.e.
Delhi Branch Office), under the Director General of Audit, in the
IA&AD and keeping in mind that respondent no.3 was senior to the
respondent no.2, we are unable to fathom as to why the experience
of the respondent no.3 has not been held to be valid administrative
work experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I. Thus, in our view, the
administrative experience of the respondent no.3 in IA&AD, who is
similarly placed as the respondent no.2, could not have been
ignored by the petitioner/UPSC and ought to have been treated as a
valid administrative experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity in the order
passed by the Tribunal insofar as it relates to the respondent nos.1
and 2. However, the impugned order of the Tribunal insofar as it
relates to respondent no.3, cannot be sustained and is accordingly
set aside. As a result, WP(C) No.10443/2017 and WP(C)
No.1490/2018 filed by the petitioner/UPSC are dismissed with
directions to the UPSC to comply with the directions of the
Tribunal in respect of Deepti Bhardwaj and Jitender Kumar within
two weeks.
22. For the reasons stated above, W.P.(C) No.8311/2017 filed by
the respondent no.3, Tribhuwan Kirti Bhardwaj is allowed and the
petitioner/UPSC is directed to include his name in the list of short-
listed candidates for the interview. It is further directed that the
result of the respondent no.3 also be declared and notified within a
period of two weeks. In case respondent no.3 falls within the merit,
consequential orders for his selection shall be passed by the
petitioner/UPSC and the requisite recommendation be forwarded
for his appointment.
23. All the three petitions along with the pending applications are
disposed of on the above terms with no orders as to costs.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
AUGUST 09, 2018/gm/aa/sr
