IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7196 of 2010 Praveen Kumar, Son of Shri Maheshwari Singh, Resident of Qr. No.4, Block No.1 (Old) Adalatganj, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Patna, At present posted as Assistant, Supreme Court Department, Patna High Court,Patna-800001. --------Applicant/Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, U.P.S.C. Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, U.P.S.C, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 3. Employees State Insurance Corporation, through Director General Panchdeep Bahwan, Kotla Marg, New Delhi. 4. The Director General, E.S.I.C. Panchdeep Bhawan, Kotla Marg, New Delhi. ---- Respondents/Respondents. ---------- 2. 26.4.2010 Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for the petitioner, Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. Anshuman for respondent nos. 3 and 4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.4.2010, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 245 of 2010, whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected, and the decision of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in declining to call the petitioner for interview has been upheld. 2. Respondent no.2 issued an advertisement bearing Special Advertisement No. 50/2009(Annexure-1), inviting applications 2 for appointments to the posts of Deputy Director Administration/insurance/training etc. in the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The ”desirable qualifications” incorporated in the advertisement is reproduced hereinbelow: “Desirable Qualification: (i) Knowledge of Social Insurance of Labour Problems (ii) Working knowledge of one of more Indian Languages especially Hindi (iii) Experience of setting up controlling of a number of smaller offices. Duties: To assist the Regional Director in all his duties when they are posted in the regions, to assist the Joint Director in his duties. Headquarters to perform such other duties as may be assigned to them.” Paragraph 3 of the advertisement is headed Minimum Educational Qualifications, and is reproduced hereinbelow: “3.Minimum Education Qualifications: All applicants must fulfil the essential requirements of the post and other conditions stipulated in the advertisement. They are advised to satisfy themselves before applying that they possesses at least the essential qualifications laid down for various posts. No enquiry asking for advice as to eligibility will be entertained. Note: I- In regard to Educational Qualifications, the mark sheet in lieu of Educational Certificates will not be accepted by the Commission. Note-II- The provisional claim whatsoever in regard to eligibility to the post will not be accepted by the Commission.” 3 The petitioner appeared at the written test and claims to have successfully crossed that stage, whereafter he received „important instructions‟ (Annexure-2) wherein it has been stated as follows: “13. Copy of experience certificate issued from his/her employer clearly indicating the entire experience period with nature of job which he/she has done/is doing in a responsible and supervisory capacity, along with scale of pay and basic pay, should be attached.” In view of these conditions, the petitioner has not been called for interview leading to the original application which has been rejected. Hence this writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of respondent no.2, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement nowhere stated that the petitioner should be functioning in supervising capacity, a condition super-imposed by respondent no.2 and is impermissible in law. He next submits in the same vein that U.P.S.C. functions in recommendatory capacity and, therefore, cannot impose conditions of its own. He relies on the following judgments: (i) 1984 (2) SCC 141, P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and others Vs. Union 4 of India & others. (ii) A.I.R. 1996 SC 352, Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others Vs. State of Orissa and others. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the candidate should have knowledge of Social Insurance of Labour Problems. Paragraph 3 of the advertisement, inter alia, states that the conditions stated therein are the very minimum educational qualifications. In other words, it is open to U.P.S.C. to add to the qualifications so that best talent is available for appointment. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner was appointed as an assistant in the High Court in 2003, which post has been redesignated as Assistant Section Officer, and surely does not function in supervisory capacity. The “Important Instructions” (Annexure-2) incorporates just and reasonable conditions, and uniformly applicable to all the candidates. The essential qualifications for a post has to be determined by the employer, and the candidate can not be permitted to have any say in the matter. It 5 would otherwise lead to chaotic situation, every candidate asking for a tailor-made advertisement and the conditions so dictated may not have any rational nexus with the requirements of the post, one thousand candidates and like number of tailor-made advertisement. Furthermore, the conditions have been uniformly applied to the entire body of the candidates and, therefore, we entirely agree with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)