Dr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

This OA, in a way reflects very sad state of affairs prevailing in the Ministry of Agriculture, or for that matter, the UPSC. The immediate beneficiary thereof is the applicant herein.

The applicant is Joint Director in the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The post of Director (Crop Development Directorate) became vacant way back in the year 2000. The applicant officiated against that post till the year 2008, in which year, he was sent to Planning Commission on deputation. By the time, he came back in the year 2014, the said post was still vacant, though an advertisement was issued by the UPSC on 04.10.2013. After he came back, the applicant once again started officiating on the post of Crop Agriculture Directorate, and continues till date. If this is the state of affairs, it is not difficult to imagine the contribution, the department is making to the improvement of the farming sector.

In the advertisement, the UPSC mentioned the educational as well as desirable qualifications, which are prescribed in the Recruitment Rules. The applicant and several others submitted their applications. When the process was half way through, this OA is filed by claiming the following reliefs:-

"A. That the respondents be directed to produce the relevant records of selection/appointment process in question for the perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

B. That in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold the impugned action of denying to the applicant consideration for appointment as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, mala fide in law, perverse and quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment if he is selected on merits with all consequential benefits.

C. That in the alternative, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the provision regarding of Ph.D in a particular field as laid down in the recruitment rules is totally unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary inasmuch as the same is not in consonance with the duties and responsibilities and quash and set aside the same in the interest of justice.

D. Pass any such other or further order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."

The applicant contends that the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment Rules was not followed, and the exercise undertaken by the UPSC is defective.

The UPSC filed a counter affidavit and, thereafter additional counter affidavit. According to them, the applicant has mentioned incorrect fact in the Application, and though he did not inform the department about his application, he mentioned in the application form that the information was given. As regards the process of selection, it is stated that the advertisement itself made it clear that apart from the minimum educational qualification, the desirable qualifications are also mentioned, which may become relevant if more applications are received. It is also stated that since many applications were received, they were short listed and the selection process was undertaken.

On behalf of respondent No.1, a counter affidavit is filed stating that the selection process is undertaken by the UPSC and they have not much to say in the matter.

We heard Shri L. R. Khatana, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashish Nischal with Shri Rajinder Nischal and Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondents.

The selection process for the post of Director was initiated long back. It is not as if the applicant was not considered by the Selection Committee. The applicant felt that he may not be selected because he was not called for interview, and accordingly approached this Tribunal.

On the first date of listing of the OA itself, interim order was passed to the effect that the process may be continued, but the result shall be kept in sealed cover till any further orders are passed. For all practical purposes, the respondents sat over the matter and the applicant is continuing as the Director-in-charge on the basis of the interim order. It does not appear that any serious effort was made to get the interim order modified.

The advertisement itself mentioned that apart from the prescribed educational qualification, i.e., Post Graduation in any branch of Agricultural Sciences, the desirable qualifications, i.e., Doctorate based on work in plant breeding and genetics would be taken into account. It is stated that as many as six candidates possessed not only the educational qualification, but also the desirable qualifications, and they were interviewed, whereas the applicant who did not possess that qualification was not short listed, though he was otherwise treated as eligible.

In this background, it cannot be said that the UPSC committed any illegally or irregularity. It is fairly well settled that in the process of selection, a person with desirable or higher qualification deserves preference, and a candidate who holds the stipulated qualification, but not the desirable qualification, cannot have any genuine grievance against it.

We, therefore, dismiss the OA and direct the UPSC and respondents to undertake the process of selection and appointments forthwith, so that the applicant does not hold the post of Director indefinitely. There shall be no order as to costs.