AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Field of
Experience
(Major)/
Specialization","Organization/
Institute
Type","Pay
Scale","Organization/
Institute","Employment
Type/Nature
of
Appointment","Nature of
duties
Performed
All works
related to
Standing
Committee
of","Â
Â
Â",Â,"Lok Sabha
Secretariat
Â",Â,"Drafting
   of
Questionnaire,
list of Points
for
Field of
Experience
(Major)/
Specialisation","Organization/
Institute
Type","Pay
Scale","Organisation/
Institute
Name","Employment
Type/
Nature of
Appointment","Nature of
Duties
Performed
Training,"(Central
Government)
Govt.",Â,"International
Centre for
Information
Systems and
Audit",Â,"Training Coordinator for
International and
          Â
National Trainings.
Administratio
n
          Â
and
Liasioning for the
management of
          Â
Courses
and Facilities
Administration,Â,Â,"ICISA, O/o the CAG of
India, A-52
Sec-62,
Noida,
          Â
UP201307",Â,Â
Field of
Experience
(Major)/
Specialization","Organization/
Institute
Type","Pay
Scale","Organization/
Institute
Name","Employment
Type/
Nature of
Appointment","Nature
    Â
of
Duties
Performed
Personnel
and
Establishment
matters",Autonomous,Â,"Lok Sabha
Secretariat
Â
Lok Sabha
Secretariat,
Parliament
Street, New
Delhi-110001",Â,"To deal with
work relating
to
administration,
personnel,
establishment
and other
service
related
matters of the
gazette
officers of
Lok Sabha
Sect. to deal
with
representation
and RTI
related
matters
Field of
Experience
(Major)/
Specialization","Organization/
Institute
Type","Pay
Scale","Organisation/
Institute
Name","Employment
Type/
Nature of
Appointment","Nature
     of
Duties
Performed
Audit and
Accounts","(Central
Government)
Govt.",Â,Â,Â,"Audit
      Â
of
Administrative
functions and
certification of
,,,,,"accounts of the
auditee
offices
Field of
Experience
(Major)/
Specialization","Organization/
Institute
Type","Pay
Scale","Organisation/
Institute
Name","Employment
Type/
Nature of
Appointment","Nature
     of
Duties
Performed
Audit and
Accounts","(Central
Government)",Â,Â,Â,"Audit
      Â
of
Administrative
,Govt.,,,,"functions and
certification of
accounts of the
auditee
offices
Mr. Kaushik further stated that the work experience of the respondent no.2 was primarily concerned with audit of accounts in the Indian Audit &,,,,,
Accounts Department (IA&A) and could not at all be treated as an administrative experience, as required for the post of SAO Gr.-I. He thus, urged",,,,,
that the Tribunal has erroneously held that the work experience possessed by the respondent nos.1 & 2 ought to be considered as an administrative,,,,,
experience, even though the nature of the duties performed by them clearly suggests otherwise. Â",,,,,
On the other hand, Mr.Suri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1/Deepti Bhardwaj, while supporting the impugned judgment,",,,,,
contended that the petitioner/UPSC had ignored the fact that from the very day of the respondent no.1’s joining the Lok Sabha Secretariat as a,,,,,
Senior Executive Assistant, she had been discharging several administrative functions and, therefore, there was no reason for the petitioner/UPSC to",,,,,
have ignored her administrative experience for five long years from 05.6.2007 to 30.6.2012, in the Lok Sabha Secretariat and in the International",,,,,
Centre for Information System & Audit. Learned Senior Counsel thus argued that the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the respondent no.1,,,,,
possessed the requisite administrative experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I.,,,,,
Similarly, Mr.Harpreet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2/Jitender Kumar, submitted that the vast experience",,,,,
gained by the respondent no.2 while discharging administrative functions in the IA&AD had been erroneously ignored by the petitioner/UPSC under,,,,,
the mistaken notion that he was carrying out only audit duties in the IA&AD. He clarified that at IA&AD, the respondent no.2 was engaged in the",,,,,
task of planning, coordinating and supervisory duties and had also been nominated to conduct administrative and technical inspections of various",,,,,
offices and therefore, canvassed that he possessed valid administrative experience as required, for being appointed as an SAO Gr.-I.",,,,,
On the other hand, Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3/Tribhuvan Kirti Bhardwaj, while impugning the",,,,,
Tribunal’s order rejecting the respondent no.3’s claim, argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondent no.3 does not have the",,,,,
requisite administrative work experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I, on an erroneous assumption that his work experience in the IA&AD was only in",,,,,
the field of accounts and audit. She submitted that while coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal failed to appreciate a vital fact that the",,,,,
experience certificates of the respondent nos.1 and 2 were identical and the respondent no.3 had also undertaken administrative duties while being,,,,,
posted in the IA&AD. She submitted that IA&AD does not have a separate set of employees for discharging administrative functions and it is for this,,,,,
reason that the respondent no.3, just like respondent no.2 was performing administrative duties while posted in IA&AD. She thus, prayed that the",,,,,
impugned order of the Tribunal, be quashed to the extent that it has held that the respondent no.3 does not have the requisite administrative work",,,,,
experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I.,,,,,
Before we deal with the rival contentions of the parties, it may be appropriate to refer to the experience required for the post of SAO Gr.-I &",,,,,
SAO Gr.-II, as prescribed in the advertisement. For the sake of convenience, the relevant extracts of the said advertisement are reproduced herein",,,,,
below:-,,,,,
“,,,,,
• Qualification:,,,,,
 Essential : Educational - Degree of a recognized University,,,,,
Experience : Six years’ administrative experience in a Government or Semi Government Organisation or Commercial Organisation of repute.,,,,,
Â,,,,,
• Desirable :(i) Diploma in Personnel Management from a recognized,,,,,
   Institution.,,,,,
(ii) Working Experience in Scientific or Industrial or Technical organization or Departments,,,,,
Â,,,,,
• Qualification:,,,,,
 Essential : Educational - Degree of a recognized University,,,,,
Experience : Three years’ experience of Administration, Establishment and Accounts work.",,,,,
Â,,,,,
Desirable: (i) Diploma in Personnel Management or Industrial   Relation from a recognized Institution.,,,,,
(ii) Working Experience in Scientific or Industrial or Technical organization or Departmentsâ€,,,,,
A perusal of the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post of SAO Gr.-I shows that, while the kind of organisation was clearly specified by the",,,,,
petitioner/UPSC in its advertisement, the same is conspicuously silent in respect of the nature of administrative experience required for the post of",,,,,
SAO Gr.-I. Once nothing was specified qua the nature of the administrative experience that was required, there was absolutely no reason for the",,,,,
petitioner/UPSC to have excluded the respondent no.1’s administrative experience in the Lok Sabha Secretariat, when she was posted with the",,,,,
Parliamentary Standing Committee and was entrusted with several administrative duties, including coordinating with senior officers of various",,,,,
ministries of the Government of India as also planning and coordinating with various officers of State Governments and Public Sector Undertakings.,,,,,
Hence, excluding the respondent no.1’s administrative experience in the Lok Sabha Secretariat was wholly unjustified and cannot be sustained. In",,,,,
our considered view, there is no infirmity in the Tribunal’s finding that the respondent no.1’s experience from 05.06.2007 to 30.06.2012 at the",,,,,
Lok Sabha Secretariat and in the International Centre for Information Systems & Audit was in fact an administrative experience and ought to have,,,,,
been taken into consideration by the petitioner/UPSC while examining her eligibility for the post of SAO Gr.-I. Â,,,,,
Similarly, when we examine the experience of the respondent no.2, we find no reason to differ with the view of the Tribunal that besides carrying",,,,,
out audit activities in IA&AD, he was also performing administrative duties. Even otherwise, once there is no denial by the petitioner/UPSC to the",,,,,
fact that IA&AD does not have any separate administrative staff, there was no justification for discarding the experience certificate issued by the",,,,,
IA&AD certifying that respondent no.2 was discharging administrative duties at the IA&AD. In our view, there was no reason for the",,,,,
petitioner/UPSC to have ignored the respondent no.2’s administrative experience in the IA&AD. Â,,,,,
We also do not find any merit in Mr.Kaushik’s plea that the Tribunal, in exercise of its powers of judicial review, ought not to have interfered",,,,,
with the Petitioner/UPSC’s finding that the work experience of the respondent no.1, as also of the respondent no.2, was not administrative in",,,,,
nature. We are of the opinion that merely because UPSC is a specialised body, an arbitrary and wholly whimsical decision taken by it cannot be",,,,,
scrutinized and corrected in judicial review. Â,,,,,
Now coming to the claim of the respondent no.3, who has been denied relief by the Tribunal, having carefully examined the experience certificate",,,,,
of the respondent no.3 relating to his work experience in the IA&AD, we find merit in Ms.Oberoi’s submission that respondent no.3’s",,,,,
administrative experience in the IA&AD was identical to that of respondent no.2 in IA&AD. It is interesting to note that the experience certificates of,,,,,
the respondent nos.2 and 3 describe the duties performed by them while working in IA&AD, in exactly identical terms as extracted hereinbelow:-",,,,,
“Selection and deployment of personnel. Formation of teams. Preparation and detailed execution of annual plan. Administrative and technical,,,,,
inspection of officers under control of Director General. Vetting of reports. Held meetings, maintained profiles, data base etc. of audited entities.",,,,,
Establishment audit of various organisations. Audit of contracts. General supervision of staff. Returns, trainings and staff welfare activities.â€",,,,,
In the light of the aforesaid description of duties performed by both, respondent no.2 & respondent no.3, while working on the same post (i.e.,",,,,,
Assistant Audit Officer), in the same office (i.e. Delhi Branch Office), under the Director General of Audit, in the IA&AD and keeping in mind that",,,,,
respondent no.3 was senior to the respondent no.2, we are unable to fathom as to why the experience of the respondent no.3 has not been held to be",,,,,
valid administrative work experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I. Thus, in our view, the administrative experience of the respondent no.3 in IA&AD,",,,,,
who is similarly placed as the respondent no.2, could not have been ignored by the petitioner/UPSC and ought to have been treated as a valid",,,,,
administrative experience for the post of SAO Gr.-I. Â,,,,,
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it relates to the respondent nos.1 and 2. However, the",,,,,
impugned order of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to respondent no.3, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. As a result, WP(C)",,,,,
No.10443/2017 and WP(C) No.1490/2018 filed by the petitioner/UPSC are dismissed with directions to the UPSC to comply with the directions of the,,,,,
Tribunal in respect of Deepti Bhardwaj and Jitender Kumar within two weeks.,,,,,
For the reasons stated above, W.P.(C) No.8311/2017 filed by the respondent no.3, Tribhuwan Kirti Bhardwaj is allowed and the petitioner/UPSC",,,,,
is directed to include his name in the list of shortlisted candidates for the interview. It is further directed that the result of the respondent no.3 also be,,,,,
declared and notified within a period of two weeks. In case respondent no.3 falls within the merit, consequential orders for his selection shall be",,,,,
passed by the petitioner/UPSC and the requisite recommendation be forwarded for his appointment.,,,,,
All the three petitions along with the pending applications are disposed of on the above terms with no orders as to costs.,,,,,