Union Public Service Commission vs Neelam Yadav

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner, Union Public Service Commission has impugned the order dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.204 of 2009, titled as "Neelam Yadav v. Union Public Service Commission" whereby the Original Application of the respondent was allowed and directing the petitioner to interview the respondent and publish the result of the respondent and in case, the respondent qualifies in interview, she would be considered for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor.

By order dated 2nd April, 2009, besides the O.A.No.204 of 2009, other Original Applications of the similar applicants as respondents were also disposed of being numbered O.A.No.20 of 2009; O.A.No.48 of 2009; O.A.No.49 of 2009; O.A.No.50 of 2009; O.A.No.51 of 2009 & O.A.No.59 of 2009 & O.A.No.60 of 2009.

The order dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the Tribunal was impugned by the petitioner in the W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2009 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 25th January, 2010 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 2nd April, 2009, which is impugned by the petitioner in the present writ petition also.

While allowing the writ petition, the Court had categorically dealt with the contentions of the respondent that since she was enrolled with the Bar Council, therefore, she must assumed to have LL.B. Degree certificate, though the same was not produced by the respondent. The observations of the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2009 in para 18 are as under:-

These respondents say that because they were enrolled with the Bar Council, therefore, it must be assumed that they had a valid LL.B. degree certificate. This is neither here nor there. There was no requirement for a candidate to attach the proof of enrollment with the Bar Council. Consequently, if an applicant attached such a document, the UPSC was not obliged to take note of it. What was required to be attached was a valid LL.B. degree certificate, nothing more or less.

In the case of respondent, this cannot be disputed that the respondent did not attach a valid LL.B. degree certificate, and consequently, the respondent did not fulfill the criteria for applying for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the order of the Tribunal directing the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent and allowing her to appear in interview, and in case, she qualifies the interview to select her for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, therefore cannot be sustained. There was no requirement for submitting the certificate from Bar Council and submitting the certificate of registration with Bar Council would not cure the defect of not submitting the degree of LL.B as was contemplated in the application form.

Therefore, for foregoing reasons, and reasons detailed in the W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2009 which was also against the order dated 2nd April, 2009 which is impugned by the petitioner before this Court, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 2nd April, 2009 in O.A.No.204 of 2009 is set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are however, left to bear their own cost.