Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 28 October 2020 · Citation: (2020) 10 CAT CK 0157

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 3429 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

35 paragraphs · 331 words

Name of the Post,Qualification

Section Officer,"B.Sc in Agriculture or Botany or

Horticulture from a recognized

University or Institute and two years

experience in Horticulture including Ornamental

Gardening in any

Government Department or

Autonomous or Statutory Body or

PSU or any Company incorporated

under Companies Act,2013 or listed

in Stock Exchange

OR

M.Sc in Agriculture with

Specialization in Horticulture or

M.Sc in Landscape Architecture or

Floriculture from a recognized

University or Institute

Sincerely,",

S/-,

Rajev Kumar (Director),

DIN No.00822825,

Vedvan Consultants Pvt Ltd.â€​,

11.

A perusal of the same reveals his qualification and indicates his conduct. Even if we ignore the form of the certificate, what becomes clear is that",

the applicant was working as a ‘Field Horticulture Manager’. Not a word is mentioned about the job description, nor it is indicated that he did",

any work in the Ornamental Gardening. In a vast Organization like CPWD, posts of specialized duties exist. The advertisement was issued for the",

post of Section Officer (Horticulture) with specific emphasis on Ornamental Gardening. The alternative qualifications at the Post Graduation level also,

emphasized on that.,

12.

When the certificate did not mention any thing about ‘Ornamental Gardening’, the question of the applicant being treated as qualified, does",

not arise.,

13.

The impugned notice contains the names of 106 candidates whose candidature was rejected mostly on this type of reasoning. If the experience of,

a candidate is to be treated as valid even without any reference to ‘Ornamental Gardening’, the whole exercise becomes redundant and the",

entire process of selection needs to be re-done. Another aspect is that the candidates who did not have experience in ‘Ornamental Gardening’,

may not have applied. If it is held that any experience in Horticulture, without reference to ‘Ornamental Gardening’, can be treated to be valid,",

there would have been quite large number of other candidates also.,

14.

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