IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 2906 of 1999 Between: Dr.K.K.Arora, S/o. Sri Mangu Ram Arora, Government of India, Ministry of Food & Consumer Afair, save Grain Campaign, Ghaziabad, U.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep by its Registrar HACA Bhavan, Safiabad, Hyderabad 2 The Union Public Service Commission, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi. 3 Union Of India Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Food, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. 4 Sri M.L.Nagar, S/o. Sidhnath Nagar, Indian Grain Storage Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyderanad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Order or Writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the respondent No.1 i.e.,, Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA/135/1996 dt. 29.1.1999 and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 16 and 19(1) (G) of Constitution of India, or pass such other order or orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKARA RAO BANDARUPALLI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following Order: The petitioner herein, aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.135 of 1996 dated 29.01.1999 filed by the 4th respondent, seeks to have the order set aside in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Director in the Ministry of Food, Government of India, offered his candidature, for the post of Deputy Director (Storage & Research) in the same Ministry, in response to an advertisement issued by the 1st respondent in June, 1994, as against a vacancy under 50% quota earmarked for departmental promotion, appeared for interview and was declared as selected. Aggrieved thereby, the 4th respondent approached the Tribunal, which, by order in O.A.135 of 1996 dated 29.01.1999, set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director (Storage & Research) Department of Food Procurement & Distribution, Ministry of Food, Government of India, and directed the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission to consider the cases of all eligible persons other than the petitioner in order to recommend the next meritorious candidate to the post in question. Consequent to the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner requested that he be continued in the present post till the next meritorious candidate is selected and appointed to the post in question and that the Tribunal had suspended its order. Petitioner states that he possessed a Post-Graduate degree in Zoology from BITS, Pilani, in 1973 and as the Post-Graduate degree held by him in Zoology was equivalent to Post-Graduate degree in Biological Sciences, he was fully qualified for being selected to the post of Deputy Director. Petitioner further states that he also possessed the requisite qualification of specialization in Entomology from the Charan Singh University, Meerut in 1993-94 and that he had submitted application to the post of Deputy Director before the cut-off date prescribed for the date of submission of the application. It is the 4th respondent’s case that the petitioner was selected for the present post of Deputy Director in spite of the fact that his post graduation was in Zoology and without any specialisation either in Entomology or Plant Pathology till the last date of submission of his application and that he acquired the requisite qualification only during 1995, long after the last date prescribed for submission of applications for the said post. The Tribunal, on elaborate consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that acceptance of the candidature of the petitioner and the action of the 2nd respondent-Union Public Service Commission in calling him for the interview to the post of Deputy Director (S&R), Ministry of Food, was irregular in view of the fact that the application submitted by him was incomplete, that acceptance of documents and certificates from the petitioner after the last date prescribed for submission of completed applications was incorrect and against the rules and instructions of the Union Public Service Commission, that determination of the required specialization of the petitioner was not done with care when there were reasons to conclude that he did not prima facie fulfil the requirement of such specialisation, and set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director (Storage & Research), Ministry of Food. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Union Public Service Commission, it is stated that the petitioner submitted his application on 27.06.1994 annexing a self attested detailed statement of his educational qualifications, that he made representation on 05.08.1994 i.e. after the closing date of receipt of applications, stating that the degree of post graduation possessed by him in Zoology was equivalent to post-graduation in BioSciences/Biology of BITS, Pilani and in support of his claim, he enclosed a certificate dated 03.08.1994 issued by the Registrar of BITS, Pilani. It is further stated that the petitioner filed a certificate dated 02.08.1994 issued by a Group Leader of BITS, Pilani, stating that he passed M.Sc. degree in Zoology in 1973, that he was taught Entomology as a part of invertebrate Zoology and Soil Biology course and that the petitioner sent another letter on 31.10.1994 annexing the certificate issued by the Meerut University to the effect that he appeared in M.Sc. Zoology in 1993-94 for specialization in Entomology from DAV College, Muzaffarnagar. It is also stated that the petitioner’s case was considered because he was possessing Master’s Degree of Zoology equivalent to Master’s Degree in Bio- Science/Biology, which is one of the prescribed educational qualification for the post in question, that the application of the petitioner was not incomplete as on the date of submission but, he only produced the supporting documents subsequent thereto, and, therefore, acceptance of his candidature cannot be said to be irregular. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-Union Public Service Commission, contended that the petitioner had submitted all the relevant certificates along with his application form giving particulars required for the post of Deputy Director and out of 13 candidates, who appeared for interview, the petitioner was selected as meritorious candidate since he possessed all the requisite qualifications. He further contended that the Tribunal was in error in setting aside the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that his application was incomplete and was not submitted within the time stipulated though the application was submitted before the cut-off date but only the clarificatory documents showing his eligibility of possessing educational qualifications were submitted subsequent thereto. Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, contended that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the acceptance of candidature of the petitioner as it was incomplete and recommending to interview the next meritorious candidate for appointment to the post in question. He further contends that as the UPSC had committed an illegality in appointing the petitioner, it would not entitle the petitioner to claim that the illegality should be perpetuated. In support of his contention, he relied on Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India[1] The aforesaid decision has no application to the facts of the present case. The acceptance of candidature of the petitioner, on the basis of the documents showing his eligibility before the cut-off date, and on the strength of the clarificatory documents submitted to that effect, is not unreasonable or illegal. The acceptance of the candidature of the petitioner for being interviewed or selected by the Union Public Service Commission is not illegal and the interference by the Tribunal is not called for and the 4th respondent herein has no right to contend that the petitioner ought not to have been considered for the post of Deputy Director (Storage & Health), Ministry of Food. The writ petitioner was selected as he was found to be the most meritorious candidate when compared to others and, therefore, his selection could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.135 of 1996 dated 29.01.1999 is set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD ,J Dt:26-09-2008 usd To 1 The Union Public Service Commission, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi. 2 The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Food, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. 3 Two CD copies [1] 2007(2) SCC (L&S) 19