AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
The applicant joined New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) as Caretaker Grade â€"II and was working as Deputy Manager (CS) at the time of
filing the present OA. He applied as a departmental candidate against the circular dated 07.05.2014 for the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer
(ALWO). The applicant claims that he was eligible in terms of his qualification, experience and grade in service. In response to the circular, 05
officials had applied including the applicant. Before the DPC could take place the applicant made a representation on 08.08.2014 to the respondents
stating that he has learnt from reliable sources that some of the ineligible officials who have applied for the post of ALWO are going to be considered
by getting relaxation and that they should not be considered being ineligible. On 28.08.2014, he made another representation to respondent No. 1
informing him that all 04 candidates except the applicant have been declared unfit for promotion on account of their educational qualification earlier
and, therefore, they are ineligible for selection as ALWO. However, the respondents vide office order dated 01.09.2014 selected and promoted
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of ALWO. Aggrieved by this action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present OA, seeking the
following reliefs:-
“(i) Call for the records of the case and peruse the same.
(ii) Declare the appointment of Respondent No. 3 & 4 to the post of ALWO as arbitrary, illegal and against the RRs;
(iii) Quash and set aside the impugned office order dated 1/9/2014 passed by official respondents, whereby Respondent No. 3 & 4 has been appointed
as ALWO;
(iv) Direct the Official Respondents to consider the case of application-n for appointment/promotion to the post of ALWO in reference to Circular
dated 7/5/2014 and promote him, as ALWO w.e.f. Respondent No. 3 & 4 were appointed with all consequential benefits, if found fit;
(v) Pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.â€
The applicant is primarily seeking that the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who have been selected vide impugned order dated 01.09.2014
be quashed and set aside and the applicant be considered for promotion to the post of ALWO with all consequential benefits. The applicant has also
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4173/2008 & Anr. titled Annamalai University Rep. By Registrar vs.
Secy. To Govt. Infn. & Toursim Dept. & Ors. dated 25.02.2009 and also the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 774/2012 dated 27.11.2012. The
applicant claims that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who have been selected as ALWO do not possess the required qualifications and that the applicant
alone is eligible and hence denial of promotion to him is illegal and unjustified.
This is the second round of litigation. The applicant had filed OA No. 3397/2012 earlier being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in
declaring him ineligible to participate in an earlier selection for the post of ALWO. This Tribunal vide order dated 21.07.2014, dismissed the same.
Respondents have filed their counter affidavit opposing the OA. Counter affidavit has not been filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, despite notices
having been issued. The respondents affirmed that in the first round of litigation, the applicant was considered ineligible as he was not working in the
prescribed pay scale. The OA No. 3397/2012 filed by him was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a Review Application against the same, which is stated
to be pending. The present OA has been filed by the applicant challenging the selection of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondents have confirmed
that the details of the educational qualifications and experience, etc. were put up before the DPC and the DPC found respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to be
suitable and, accordingly, promoted them to the post of ALWO. It is submitted that there is no substance in the claim of the applicant that respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 have been selected despite being ineligible in terms of their academic qualifications.
We heard Mr. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondents.
The applicant was working as Caretaker, Gradeâ€"II in the NDMC since 1990 and had applied as a departmental candidate for the post of ALWO
in the year 2009. On scrutiny it was found that the applicant was not eligible for the post on account of the fact that he had not worked in the pay
scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant had filed OA No. 3397/2012. This Tribunal vide its order dated 21.07.2014
dismissed the same. The applicant filed Review Applicant against the order of the Tribunal which is said to be pending. Subsequently the respondents
issued another circular dated 07.05.2014 inviting applications from the departmental candidates for the post of ALWO. The applicant was one of the
05 candidates shortlisted for selection by the DPC. On the recommendations of the DPC and with the approval of the competent authority, the
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to the post of ALWO. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant has filed the present OA. In this OA, he is
seeking that the selection of respondents No. 3 and 4 be set aside in view of their being ineligible on account of lack of prescribed educational
qualification. The applicant has relied upon his “sources†and also on some file notings that he has obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005
in claiming that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are ineligible. His contention is that in 2009 also a reference was made regarding respondent No. 3, who was
also an applicant therein. He has also stated that respondent No. 3 is possessing only one year B.A. Certificate which cannot be considered as
qualification of a B.A. Degree and, therefore, he is ineligible. Regarding respondent No. 4, he has relied upon one of the official file notings indicating
that he seems to be not covered under the recruitment rules for the post as far as the essential educational qualification with reference to the subjects
of his graduation degree are concerned.
Respondents had issued a circular dated 07.05.2014 inviting applications from departmental employees for the post of ALWO. Certain essential
educational qualifications were prescribed as under:
“Educational & Other Qualifications
Essential:
1) Degree from a recognized university or equivalent in social science subject viz. Sociology, Economics and Anthropology etc.
ii) About 5 years experience of social work including about two years Administrative experience in a supervisory post in any Govt./Semi-
Govt./recognized institution
OR
1) Master’s Degree in Social Work/Political Science, or its equivalent from a recognized university/Institution.
ii) About 3 years experience of social work including about 2 years experience in a supervisory post in Govt./Semi-Govt./recognized institution.
(qualifications relaxable on Committee (Council’s) discretion in case of candidates otherwise well qualified
Desirable :
i) Case work orientation and experience in Community Organization, Organization of correctional work in particular and social work with handicapped
in general.
ii) Knowledge of Hindiâ€
Apart from having worked in a certain pay grade, essential and desirable qualifications have also been stated in the circular. Essential educational
qualification prescribed is a Degree from a recognized university or equivalent in Social Science subjects viz. Sociology, Economy and Anthropology,
etc. Another important point is Para (2) of the essential qualifications wherein it is stated that qualifications relaxable on Committee (Council’s)
decision in case of candidates otherwise well qualified. Although the Tribunal cannot intervene in the decision taken by the duly constituted DPC, it
would be necessary to have a look at the statements with details of the applicants annexed in the OA as Annexureâ€" A-12 in tabular form enclosed
along with note for DPC obtained under RTI by the applicant. The noting enclosed as a part of Annexure A-12 (pages - 56, 62 & 63) provide names
of 05 candidates including the applicant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The very fact that their names have been included in the note for the DPC
clearly indicates that all the 05 persons were eligible for selection. It is also mentioned in the note that all the candidates are working in the prescribed
grade and are having the required qualifying service in terms of the recruitment rules. It is also indicated that the DPC may take a view on educational
qualification and experience, etc. Statement of applicants in tabular form enclosed at page 62-63 provides information regarding their pay scales and
educational qualification wherein, the information provided for respondent No. 3 is one year B.A. from Osmania University, Hyderabad in 1986 with
subjects English, Hindi, Sociology, Political Science and Public Administration. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, the column of educational
qualification indicates Graduate from Allahabad University with subjects Philosophy, Politics and History. The applicant has submitted that one year
B.A. Degree for respondent No. 3 is not valid and, therefore, it makes him ineligible. Similarly for respondent No. 4, the Degree possessed by him
does not include the subjects prescribed.
As far as the validity of one year degree is concerned, this has been dealt with at length in the earlier OA No. 774/2012. The order of the Tribunal
also took note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University case (supra). This has also been relied upon by the
applicant. In the said judgment, it was held as under:
“33. It is also not a case as has been contended by Mr. K. Parasaran as also Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, that we should invoke our jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Writ petitioners - respondents has moved the High Court at the earliest possible opportunity. It is a case of
promotion. It is not a case of fresh entry in services. Our judgment would not affect the service of appellant Ramesh. He cannot only be promoted to
the post of Principal of the Institute. Even in the earlier round of litigation, the Madras High Court opined:
When all these reasons have been given by the Government for appointing the appellant as the Principal, we see no arbitrariness in the
appointment and in particular, when the stand of the University Grants Commission is clear that on the date when the appellant obtained his M.A.
Degree, it was possible for a person who did not have the basic degree to obtain the M.A. degree, the order appointing the appellant as the principal
cannot be quashed.
In view of a long pending litigation, in our opinion, it will be unjust to deprive the writ petitioner - respondent from his lawful demand. We, therefore,
are of the opinion that it is not a case where discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked.
With the aforementioned reasons, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.â€
The same subject was also discussed at length in the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 774/2012. It was also concluded in the order that it
would be open for the respondents to act as per the stand taken by them in last paragraph of the impugned order. A Review Application was filed in
OA No. 774/2012, by respondent No. 3 in the present OA. While disposing of the Review Application vide order dated 14.03.2013, this Tribunal had
directed the respondents i.e. NDMC to take up the matter with UGC and find out whether any decision mentioned in the communication dated
14.03.1997, 30.06.1999 and 25.10.2011 has been taken. This is basically arising out of the discussion in OA No. 774/2012 (Para-2) which has also
taken note of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 25.02.2009 in Annamalai University case (supra). The reference is
primarily to the DO letters dated 14.03.1997, 30.06.1999 and also letter dated 25.10.2011 that once a Degree is obtained by a person up to the cut off
date i.e. 1998-1999 is considered as valid.
The respondents have confirmed in their counter affidavit that in terms of the directions given in the order passed in RA dated 14.03.2013, a letter
was sent to the UGC dated 03.06.2012 with regard to the referred communications. The UGC has informed vide their letter dated 17.07.2013 that
their letter dated 25.10.2011 sent to NDMC was based on the decisions taken by the commission and circulated to the universities vide letters dated
14.03.1997 and 30.06.1999. Accordingly, a B.A. Degree awarded in the year 1986 was considered valid by the respondents and on the approval of
the competent authority, the Degree obtained by respondent No. 3 was approved for the purpose of educational qualifications as per the recruitment
rules for the post of ALWO. The very fact that such a decision was taken by the UGC has also been noted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Annamalai University case (supra), wherein in para-22, it is stated as under:-
“UGC despite requests and representations received from various persons reiterated its earlier decision regarding the validity of
M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. Degree (One Sitting) in its letter No. F.1-30/96 (CPP- II) dated 23.07.1998 to the Registrar of the Universities.
Again after considering a number of representations/complaints from various persons, the U.G.C. vide its letter dated 30-06-1999 addressed to the
universities reiterated that the candidates who had completed their B.A. under one sitting during the year 1998-99 may be treated as valid. As per the
letter, the said degrees were to be treated valid for all purposes including admission to higher degrees and for employment purposes. It also informed
the universities that any violation of the said direction would be severely dealt with.â€
From the above mentioned it is evident that in view of the decision taken by the UGC, the one year Degree obtained in 1986 by respondent No. 3
was considered as valid and approved for the purpose of educational qualification as per the recruitment rules for the post of ALWO. As far as the
educational qualification of respondent No. 4 is concerned, the applicant has highlighted that this is regarding the subjects that he has studied in his
Graduation which are not in accordance with the circular. The circular dated 07.05.2014 provides for requirement of a Graduate Degree from a
recognized university or equivalent in Social Science subjects viz., Sociology, Economy and Anthropology, etc. It is a fact that Social Science group of
subjects also include subjects like Politics, Philosophy and History and, therefore, these subjects have been considered to be in accordance with the
recruitment rules in terms of not only Social Science but ‘etc.’ having been mentioned in the circular. The DPC has accordingly considered the
candidature of respondent No. 4 to be valid.
It is worthwhile to mention that the DPCs are in terms of the law empowered to devise their own methodology, etc. and can arrive at its own
conclusion on the basis of the record made available to them.
11 (i). In Union Of India & Anr vs S.K. Goel & Ors, C.A. No. 689/2007 dated 12.02.2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the DPC enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability
and merit of the candidate being considered by it. Hence, the interference by the High Court is not called for. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal stands
allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.â€
11 (ii). Similarly, in OA No. 020/00388/2014 titled Janaki Arun Kumar vs Central Excise &Amp Customs dated 24.12.2019, the Hyderabad Bench
of this Tribunal, observed as under:
“20. Coming to the second aspect urged in this OA, it is fairly well established that the DPC has every right to arrive at its own conclusion and that
it is not under obligation to record reasons in support of its conclusion. The occasion to interfere with the proceedings of this nature would arise only
when malafides against the members of the DPC are attributed and are proved, or the proceedings of the DPC are found to be contrary to any
specific provision of law.â€
In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that the applicant has filed this OA primarily challenging the eligibility
of the other selected candidates. In 2009, the applicant was himself not found eligible. Although for this selection he was considered by the DPC, but
was not selected for the post of ALWO. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were selected as ALWOs by the DPC and approved by the competent authority.
The claim of the applicant that the selected candidates i.e. Respondent No. 3 and 4 were ineligible in terms of their educational qualifications is not
tenable in view of the above mentioned. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the role of DPC are also relevant to this case.
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned promotion order selecting Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the post of
ALWOs dated 01.09.2014 passed by the respondents. There is no merit in the claim of the applicant in the OA and the same is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.