NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus KAVINDER AND OTHERS
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 13, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
v.
KAVINDER AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2020)
JULY 21, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,
INDU MALHOTRA AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Service Law:
Selection/ Recruitment – Eligibility requirement for the post
in question was post-graduate degree or diploma in social work/
Labour Welfare/ Industrial Relations/ Personnel Management/ Any
other allied subjects – Respondent-candidate declared ineligible
for the post – Central Administrative Tribunal held the candidate
as eligible for appointment to the post as he fulfilled the eligibility
criteria since he had studied certain subjects in his MBA degree
course which had bearing on the eligibility requirement for the post
– High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal – Appeal to Supreme
Court – Held: The subjects studied by the candidate during MBA
course cannot lead to conclusion that he had post-graduate degree
or diploma in the disciplines specifically spelt out in the
advertisement for the post – MBA degree cannot be regarded as
allied to a post-graduate degree or diploma – The employer was
best suited to judge whether the degree of the candidate was in an
allied subject – Judgment of the Courts below was erroneous.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The eligibility requirements stipulated in the
advertisement are that the candidate must have a post-graduate
degree or diploma in (i) Social Work; or (ii) Labour Welfare; or
(iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel
Management; or (v)
in any other allied subject of a recognized University/institution
or equivalent. The first respondent in the MBA degree
programme, during the course of the second semester, studied
Human Resource Management as a subject. In the fourth
semester, the first respondent had a course in Industrial Relations
and Labour Legislation. Studying these two subjects would not
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 13
13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
lead to the conclusion that the first respondent holds a post-
graduate degree or diploma in the disciplines which have been
specifically spelt out in the advertisement or in any allied subject.
The MBA degree cannot be regarded as allied to a post-graduate
degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial
Relations or Personnel Management. The advertisement did not
specifically provide how equivalence was to be established
between a post-graduate degree/diploma in the subjects specified
in the advertisement and a post-graduate degree/diploma in an
allied subject. The appellant as an employer was best suited to
judge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an allied
subject. Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to the
requirements prescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere.
Therefore, the Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that
the first respondent was qualified merely because he studied two
subjects as a part of his MBA degree programme, namely, Human
Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour
Legislation. Therefore, the findings which have been arrived at
by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are erroneous.
[Paras 8-10][17-D-H; 18-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 232 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 11274 of 2016.
Ajay Bansal, Praveen Swarup,
Amit Singh, Kanishk Singh, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Kanhaiya Singhal, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Sunita Sharma,
B.V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 29 November 2016. The High
Court has, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution, affirmed a judgment and order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal at its Principal Bench at New Delhi, by which the first respondent
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
was held to be qualified for appointment to the post of Labour Welfare
Superintendent.
2. An advertisement was issued for inviting applications for various
posts in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on a competitive basis. Among
the posts that were advertised was that of a Labour Welfare
Superintendent in the Municipal Corporation. The qualifications and
experience required for the post were prescribed as follows:
“Essential Qualifications:
(1) Degree of a recognized University or Equivalent.
(2) Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma in Social Work or Labour
Welfare or Industrial Relations or Personnel Management or
in any other allied subject of recognized University /institution
or equivalent.
Desirable:
(1) Degree in Law of a recognized University or equivalent.
(2) Experience in the field in responsible capacity of Labour
Welfare/Industrial Relations/Personnel Management and/or
in allied fields.”
3. The selection process was conducted by the Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board by way of written examinations. Even after
the candidate had appeared for the examinations, the Board or the
appellant retained the authority to cancel their candidature during the
recruitment process, if she/he failed to meet the said eligibility criteria.
The first respondent applied for the post and appeared in the examination
conducted by the Board. He was provisionally short-listed for the
Part II examination upon the declaration of the results of the Part I
objective
examination. He was, however, declared not to be eligible for
selection.
4. Aggrieved by his non-selection, the first respondent moved the
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) contending that he fulfilled the
eligibility requirements. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 20
May 2016, came to the conclusion that the first respondent fulfilled the
conditions of eligibility. The first respondent holds a B.Sc. degree from
Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and thus, satisfied the first
condition of eligibility. With regard to the second condition, the Tribunal
noted that the first respondent did not claim to have a degree or diploma
N.D.M.C. v. KAVINDER & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
in Social Work or Labour Welfare, but that as a student of the MBA
degree programme of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, he had
studied certain subjects which had a bearing on the eligibility requirements.
Accepting the contention of the first respondent, the Tribunal held that
he had studied Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations
in the course of the MBA degree programme. It was on this basis that
the first respondent was held to be eligible and having passed the
competitive examination, a direction was issued for his appointment to
the post. This order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Delhi while rejecting a writ petition instituted
by the appellant.
5. The issue which falls for determination in the appeal is whether
the first respondent fulfills the requirements of eligibility. The
advertisement issued by the appellant specifies that the essential
qualifications would consist of (i) a degree of a recognized University or
equivalent; (ii) a post graduate degree/diploma in Social Work, Labour
Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management or in any other
allied subject of a recognized University/institution or equivalent.
6. Mr Ajay Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, submits that merely because the first respondent had studied
the subjects of Human Resource Management during the course of the
second semester and Industrial
Relations and Labour Legislation during
the course of the fourth semester of the MBA degree programme, would
not lead to the inference that he possessed the essential qualifications
prescribed in the advertisement. It was submitted that in the absence of
the first respondent holding a prescribed qualification, both the Tribunal
and the High Court have erred in issuing a direction for his appointment.
7. Opposing these submissions, Mr Kanhaiya Singhal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, has made an earnest
effort to persuade this Court to hold that the view which has been adopted
by the Tribunal and by the High Court is correct. Learned counsel
submitted that a concurrent view has been taken by both the Tribunal
and the High Court that the first respondent fulfilled the conditions of
eligibility and this should not be interfered with. Apart from this, learned
counsel sought to urge that the eligibility requirements which were
stipulated in the advertisement contemplate the holding of a post graduate
degree/diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations,
Personnel Management, or in any other allied subject. He urged that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
17
MBA degree of the first respondent should be construed as one in an
allied subject, particularly having regard to the nature of the courses
undertaken as a part of the MBA degree programme. In this context, he
sought to draw parity between the subjects which are offered in the
course of the degree in Personnel Management and the subjects which
were studied by the first respondent.
8. While assessing merits of the rival contentions, we must at the
outset have due regard to the basis which has been adopted by the first
respondent in support of his contention that he fulfills the eligibility
requirements. The categoric position of the first respondent is that during
the course of the MBA degree programme, he had studied the subjects
of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour
Legislation. Having regard to this position, the issue which falls for
determination is whether this would lead the Court to the conclusion that
the first respondent fulfills the eligibility requirements. The eligibility
requirements stipulated in the advertisement are that the candidate must
have a post graduate degree or diploma in (i) Social Work; or (ii) Labour
Welfare; or (iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel Management; or
(v) in any other allied subject of a recognized University/institution or
equivalent.
9. The first respondent completed the MBA degree programme
from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The mark sheets which
have been relied upon by
the first respondent indicate that during the
course of the second semester, he studied Human Resource Management
as a subject. In the fourth semester, the first respondent had a course in
Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. Studying these two subjects
would not lead to the conclusion that the first respondent holds a post
graduate degree or diploma in the disciplines which have been specifically
spelt out in the advertisement or in any allied subject. The MBA degree
cannot be regarded as allied to a post graduate degree or diploma in
Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel
Management. The recruitment was being made to the service of the
appellant. The advertisement did not specifically provide how equivalence
was to be established between a postgraduate degree/diploma in the
subjects specified in the advertisement and a postgraduate degree/diploma
in an allied subject. The appellant as an employer was best suited to
judge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an allied subject.
Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to the requirements
N.D.M.C. v. KAVINDER & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
prescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere. We are of the view
that the Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that the first respondent
was qualified merely because he studied two subjects as a part of his
MBA degree programme, namely, Human Resource Management and
Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. The High Court has simply
affirmed the view of the Tribunal.
10. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the findings
which have been arrived at by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High
Court are erroneous. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 29 November
2016. In consequence, OA No 1492 of 2013 filed by the first respondent
before the Central Administrative Tribunal shall stand dismissed. However,
in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.