CWP No.16462 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.16462 of 2009
Date of decision: 16.11.2009
Arvind Kumar
....Petitioners.
vs.
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others.
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
HON'BLE MR.MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
---
Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Yashdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
--
J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral)
Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has impugned
the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,
Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Original
Application No.62/CH of 2009 decided on 1.9.2009. The same order
rendered by the Tribunal has also been impugned by the Post Graduate
Institute of Medical Education and Research ( hereinafter referred to as
“the PGI”) through CWP No.17344 of 2009. Yet another writ petition has
been preferred against the aforesaid order rendered by the Tribunal in CWP
No.16275 of 2009, by those who were arrayed as private respondents in the
aforesaid Original Application No.64-CH of 2009. All the aforesaid three
writ petition are being disposed of through this common order.
Two issues arise before us for our consideration in all these
writ petitions. Firstly, whether the petitioner Arvind Kumar who has
approached this Court through CWP No.16462 of 2009 was eligible for
appointment against the post of Store Keeper. In so far as the instant issue
CWP No.16462 of 2009 2
is concerned, undisputedly the eligibility conditions prescribed by the PGI
were as under:-
“EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Essential
1. Bachelor Degree in Economics/Commerce/Statistics.
2. Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma in Material Management
from a recognized University/Institution or equivalent.
Desirable.
Experience in handling store and record keeping in a store
preferably medical or concern of repute in public or private
sector.
OR
1. Degree of recognized University or equivalent.
2. Post-Graduate Diploma in Material Management of a
recognized University/Institution.
3. Three years experience in handling,store, store preferably
medical stores in Govt./Public/Private Sector”.
Arvind Kumar claims and asserts, that he was possessing the qualifications
of Master’s Degree in Commerce, as well as, Post Graduate Diploma in
Material Management from a recognized institute at the time when
applications were invited for the post of Store Keeper. The fact that he
possessed the aforesaid qualifications is not in dispute. The only challenge is
that although he possessed the qualifications depicted at Serial No.1
hereinabove out of the first alternate, he did not/does not possess the
qualification of Bachelor’s Degree in Economics/Commerce/Statistics, and
as such, could not have been considered to be eligible for the post of Store
Keeper.
In order to controvert the contention of the PGI pertaining to
the eligibility of the petitioner Arvind Kumar it is submitted by the learned
CWP No.16462 of 2009 3
counsel representing him, that the petitioner possessed Master’s Degree in
the same stream,as the one stipulated in the prescribed essential
qualifications. And that, the Master’s Degree being a higher qualification
than the Bachelor’s Degree, he should be treated as eligible for appointment
to the post of Store Keeper. In order to substantiate his instant contention,
learned counsel representing the petitioner Arvind Kumar relies on a
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K and others v. Kerala
Public Service Commission and others JT 2002 (Suppl.1)SC 85, wherein
the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:-
” It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when
a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the
same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different
qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also
justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly
indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification
prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the rule to
the effect that such of those higher qualifications which
presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification
prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a
person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty,
such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post.
In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. Under the
relevant rules, for the post of assistant engineer, degree in
electrical engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent
qualification recognized or equivalent thereto has been
prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to
be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously
gives an indication that such qualifications is definitely higher
qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely,
the post of sub-engineer. In that view of the matter the
CWP No.16462 of 2009 4qualification of degree in electrical engineering presupposes the
acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject
prescribed for the* post, shall be considered to be sufficient for
that post. In the event the government is of the view that only
diploma holders should have applied to the post of sub-
engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications,
either this rule should have excluded in respect of candidates
who possess higher qualifications or the position should have
been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply
for such post…..”.
Following the judgment rendered in Jyoti K.K’s case (supra), a Division
Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and
others, CWP No.10926 of 2007 decided on 21.12.2007, arrived at the same
conclusion. In view of the above, even though one of the essential
qualifications stipulated in the prescribed qualifications was Bachelor’s
Degree in Commerce, yet since the petitioner Arvind Kumar possessed the
Master’s Degree in the same stream, we are satisfied, that in view of the
decisions, referred to hereinabove, the petitioner should be treated as
eligible for appointment to the post of Store Keeper.
The second question that falls for our consideration is, whether
or not it was open to the PGI to alter the criterion stipulated by itself, for all
processes of selections at the PGI. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to
mention, that in the selection criterion determined by the PGI 85% marks
were allotted for written examination, as against 15% marks for viva-voce.
In derogation to the aforesaid criterion the Selection Committee adopted the
criterion of 80 marks for the written examination and 20 marks for the
interview. The Tribunal accordingly set aside this process of selection with
the direction that the same should be re-conducted.
CWP No.16462 of 2009 5
The factual position, as has been noticed hereinabove, is not
subject matter of dispute. The only issue that arises for our consideration is
whether the same selection process can be adopted for re-determining the
merit of the candidates specially when there is no allegation on either side
(either at the hands of the petitioner Arvind Kumar, or at the hands of the
private respondents who have approached this Court by way of filing CWP
No.16275 of 2009), that the same was vitiated on account of extraneous
consideration, mala-fides, or for any other such reason. We are accordingly
of the view, that it would be just and appropriate in the facts and
circumstances of this case, to require the PGI to re-draw the merit list by
reapportioning the marks assigned to the candidates who participated in the
process of selection, so as to assign 85 marks in the written examination
and 15 marks for the interview/viva voce, so as to redraw the merit list.
Ordered accordingly. Besides the instant modification to the impugned order
dated 1.9.2009, we affirm the order rendered by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.
Needless to mention, that if in the meantime certain additional
vacancies of Store Keepers have arisen, it would be open to the PGI to
adjust one or more candidates against such vacancies, if it considers
appropriate.
All the writ petitions mentioned in the opening paragraphs of
the instant order are accordingly disposed of.
( J.S.Khehar)
Judge
(Mehinder Singh Sullar)
Judge
November 16, 2009rk
CWP No.16462 of 2009 6
rk