Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2019) 03 CAT CK 0075

Dhananjay Keshavrao Sable vs Union Of India Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 7 March 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimh Reddy, J · Mohd. Jamshed, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 756 Of 2019

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 589 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant is working as Assistant Drugs Controller in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The Union Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No.6/18 inviting applications for various posts, and one such post is Deputy Drugs Controller (I) (Medical Devices), Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, DGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (UR-01). The qualifications stipulated for that post are mostly engineering related, and seven years of experience in manufacturing or testing or regulation of medical devices or in research or designing. The application was required to be made through online.

2.

The applicant intended to apply for the post. However, the online facility was not accepting the same since the applicant did not hold the prescribed qualification. He made the application to the UPSC through offline, on 12.04.2018. The UPSC rejected the same through letter dated 28.11.2018. It was mentioned that the application was required to be made only through online and that the one made through offline cannot be accepted. It was also mentioned that the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification. The same is challenged in this OA.

3.

The applicant who argued his case in person submits that he is holding the post of Assistant Drugs Controller for the past four years and the advertised post is from the same line and discipline. He contends that throughout the country, posts related to the Drugs Control are held by the persons having the qualifications in Pharmacy and there is no basis for stipulating a different qualifications. Other grounds are also pleaded.

4.

We heard Shri Satish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 at the admission stage.

5.

The qualifications stipulated for the post in question are as under:-

"QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL: EDUCATIONAL: Master‟s Degree in Technology/Engineering in Bio Medical Engineering or Chemical Engineering or Bio-Technology or Mechanical or Electrical Engineering or Electronics or Instrumentation Engineering or Polymer Engineering with seven years‟ experience in manufacturing or testing or regulation of medical devices or in research or designing. OR Bachelor‟s Degree in Technology/Engineering in Bio Medical Engineering or Chemical Engineering or Bio-Technology or Mechanical or Electrical Engineering or Electronics or Commission‟s discretion in case of candidates otherwise well qualified."

Desirable qualifications are also mentioned, but we are not concerned with the same.

6.

The advertisement is to the effect that the application shall be made only through online. Programme is devised in such a manner that the application would be received by system if only the proper entries are made. It does not accept the application if different qualifications are sought to be entered. It was in that context, that the applicant was unable to upload his online application and accordingly has chosen to submit the application, offline.

7.

In the impugned order, two reasons were mentioned, namely, the application is made through offline and the applicant does not hold the prescribed qualifications.

8.

Admittedly the applicant does not hold any of the qualifications mentioned above. He is from the discipline of Pharmacy. It is for the employer to stipulate and prescribe qualifications for a post which they intend to fill. Neither the Courts, nor the applicants can find fault with the qualifications stipulated by the employer.

9.

Added to that, in the changing society one cannot remain static in the context of job requirements or the objects sought to be achieved in a particular service.

10.

We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.