Person. vs INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Judgment

1. This is the third writ petition filed by the present petitioner with regard to his application for the post of Protocol Officer in the respondent- Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited [“IREDA”], pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2022. A.

2. THE CONTROVERSY: The post in question was that of Protocol Officer/Technical Assistant/Officer on Special Duty [E-0 Level on regular basis], for which W.P.(C) 3627/2025 following educational/professional qualifications and post- qualification experience were provided in the advertisement: Position/level Protocol Officer/Technical Assistant/Officer on Special Duty E-0 Level (on regular basis) Post Qualification Experience Educational/Professional Qualification Bachelors Degree Minimum 3 years duration in any discipline with Post Graduate Qualification of minimum of two years. 10 Minimum years Post- qualification experience with exposure to Government Rules & Procedures in HR & Admn. / Finance/ Law/ Company Secretary/ Vigilance/ Coordination and Protocols in Government/Public Sector Undertakings.1 Technical Candidates presently holding supervisory posts in S-1 Level (IREDA Pay Scale of Rs. 28000- 3%-75000 equivalent) shall be eligible to apply.

As further elaborated below, the petitioner first challenged the qualifications mentioned in the Advertisement, but the controversy in the present case is as to whether he was eligible for the said post in terms of the advertised eligibility qualifications. In response to an administrative grievance raised by the petitioner, IREDA has stated its position in a communication dated 16.07.2022 addressed to him. As far as the post of Protocol Officer is concerned, it was stated as follows: “3. Case II (Rejection of your application by IREDA for the post of Protocol Officer): IREDA's Reply: As per the specifications advertised by IREDA for the post of Protocol Officer, the candidates presently holding supervisory posts in S-1 level (IREDA pay scale of Rs. 28000-3%- 75000 and above or equivalent) in Government/ Public Sector Undertakings were eligible to apply. You were engaged by 1 Emphasis supplied. W.P.(C) 3627/2025 manpower agency and not working for Government/ Public Sector Undertakings. You were not meeting the eligibility criteria and therefore, your application was rejected. Hence, the allegation made by you is false and baseless.”

4. It is the petitioner’s submission that he holds a degree of Bachelor of Commerce [“B.Com”] from Delhi University and a five-year postgraduate qualification as a Cost Accountant from the Institute of Cost Accountants of India.

5. The petitioner asserts that he also has the requisite experience of ten years, having worked for nine years as a Cost Accountant in IREDA itself and for six years prior to that in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [“DMRC”], which is also a PSU. It is the admitted position that his services in DMRC and IREDA were through a manpower outsourcing agency. However, the petitioner contends that his deployment in IREDA was pursuant to interview with IREDA officers directly, and in terms of its own internal procedures and practices. B.

6. LITIGATION HISTORY: The petitioner first approached this Court challenging recruitment by way of W.P.(C) 6884/2022. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 15.12.2023, holding that the petitioner had challenged the recruitment process but not the recruitment policy, and that having applied under the advertisement in question, the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the procedure. The Court also recorded as follows: It may also be noted by this Court that the petitioner “50. having applied under the post of E-0 level, does not possess the essential requirements such as the 10 years of post-qualifying experience in order for his candidature to be considered by the respondent no.1 W.P.(C) 3627/2025

51. Since, the petitioner has not prayed for considering his candidature to the said post and has merely sort2 for a relief challenging the manner of recruitment not being transparent on the ground that it is violative of fundamental right to equality of opportunity, this Court deems it irrelevant to go into the merits of his candidature. 52. This Court after perusing the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the factual matrix of the instant petition is of the considered view that firstly, the petitioner cannot challenge the recruitment process subsequently after having participated in it merely because the selection was unfavourable for him and secondly, although the courts have wide discretion in issuing writs, they (yet) cannot grant a relief which is not prayed by the petitioner.”3

7. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid judgment in LPA 247/2024, but withdrew the appeal on 10.07.2024, with liberty to take steps before the appropriate Court.

8. The petitioner then filed a Public Interest Litigation [“PIL”] by way of W.P.(C) 12668/2024, challenging the recruitment process as well as the recruitment policy. The PIL was dismissed, by judgment dated

10.09.2024, on the ground that a PIL is not maintainable in the case of a service dispute. However, the Division Bench also examined the issue on facts, noting the judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2023; the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla4 and Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi5; and the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Karan Singh Meena v. Registrar General, Delhi High Court & Anr6. It dismissed the PIL reiterating the settled principle of law that persons who participated in the recruitment