Delhi High Court
Union Public Service Commission vs Dr. Venkateshwaran V & Ors on 23 November, 2022
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005088
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23rdNovember, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 3253/2017 and C.M. No. 14133/2022
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Petitioner
Versus
DR. VENKATESHWARAN V & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Ajay Pal, Mr. Vikalp,
Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Ms. Priya, Advocates
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashish Nischal, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (Oral)
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject post has
been re-advertised as a certificate dated 24.07.2020 was received from
the user department i.e., Department of Agriculture and Cooperation,
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.11.2022 13:35:02
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005088
specifically stating that there is no court case/litigation pending qua
the said post.
2. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 14.12.2016 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, the 'Tribunal'), wherein the
Original Application filed by respondent No.1 seeking setting aside of
the selection of respondent No.3 to the post of Extension Officer, has
been allowed.
3. While holding that respondent No.3 was not qualified for the
post, the Tribunal has returned a finding that respondent No.1
(petitioner before the Tribunal) was four times more experienced than
respondent No.3 and accordingly, set aside the selection of respondent
No.3 and directed the petitioners to appoint respondent No.1 as the
Extension Officer against the direct recruitment post with effect from
the date of appointment of respondent No.1 on deputation.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Tribunal was not
qualified to make a comparative assessment of the qualification and
return a finding that respondent No.1 was qualified and that also four
times over-qualified than the respondent No.3. Learned counsel
submits the Tribunal could have at best quashed the appointment of
respondent No.3, but could not have then evaluated the qualification
of respondent No.1, which is the prerogative of the Selection Board.
He submits that the Selection Board comprises of expert in the subject
field and they alone are competent to opine on the qualification and
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.11.2022 13:35:02
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005088
suitability of an individual for a particular post.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 concedes to the
said position and submits that he has no objection in case a direction
is issued to the petitioner to re-constitute a Selection Board for
assessing the suitability, eligibility and merit of respondent No.1. He
further submits that there was also a prayer before the Tribunal for
converting the deputation of respondent No.1 on that very post into a
regular appointment. He submits that the experience gained while
working on deputation may also be taken into account by the
Selection Board.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 is
set aside to the limited extent that it directs appointment of respondent
No.1. The petitioner is directed to re-constitute a Selection Board for
assessing the suitability, eligibility and merit of respondent No.1 to
the said post. If found suitable, consequential directions be issued by
the Competent Authority in accordance with law.
7. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2022/NA
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:24.11.2022 13:35:02
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
