Mr. Mr. Shubham Chaturvedi, Advs. Vijay Joshi and v. RUBY ORS

Judgment

1. The present writ petition challenges the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 2324/2021, wherein the Tribunal directed the Petitioners to offer appointments to the Respondents for the post of Statistical Investigator Grade- II under the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2019.

2. The relevant facts, as emerged from the pleadings, are as Signature Not Verified 1 Hereinafter “Tribunal” Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:17.03.2025 16:52:39 W.P.(C) 11322/2023 follows: The Staff Selection Commission2, the petitioner herein, issued a notification on 22.10.2019 for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2019 for the recruitment of candidates to various Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ posts, including the position of Statistical Investigator Grade-II3. The Combined Graduate Level Examination 2019 Notice4 expressly stipulated the essential educational qualifications required for the SIG-II post, as detailed below: “8.3 Statistical Investigator Grade-II:

8.3.1 Bachelor’s Degree in any subject with Statistics as one of the subjects from a recognized University or Institute. The candidates must have studied Statistics as a subject in all the three years of the graduation course.”

3. With regard to the essential educational qualification prescribed for the said post, the relevant extract of the Recruitment Rules5 for SIG-II, as originally notified by the Office of Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs on 01.10.2019, reads as under: “Essential: Bachelor degree in any subject with Statistics as one of the subject from a recognised University or Institute. Note 1: The qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Staff Selection Commission or competent authority, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in case of candidates otherwise well qualified.” 2 Hereinafter “SSC” 3 Hereinafter “SIG-II” 4 Hereinafter “CGLE Notice” Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:17.03.2025 16:52:39 W.P.(C) 11322/2023

4. The Scheme of the Examination, as per the CGLE Notice, required the candidates to clear the various levels followed by the process of Document Verification, as reproduced below: “11 The Scheme of Examination: 11.1 The Examination will be conducted in four tiers as indicated below: i. ii. iii. iv. applicable)/ Documents Verification.” Tier-I: Computer Based Examination Tier-II: Computer Based Examination Tier-III: Pen and Paper Mode (Descriptive paper) Tier-IV: Computer Proficiency Test/Skill Test (wherever

5. All the Respondents herein, among other candidates, applied for the SIG-II post, appeared in the CGLE 2019 examination, and successfully cleared Tier-I, Tier-II, and Tier-III. However, during the document verification process in September 2021, they were found ineligible on the ground that they had not studied Statistics in all three years of graduation, as mandated under the CGLE Notice. Consequently, their candidature for the post was rejected.

6. The educational qualifications of the Respondents are specified as under: Applicants Educational Qualifications Ruby (Respondent No. 1)

B.Com (H) with statistics as a subject in First Year & Second Year and MBA (HR) with Statistics as a subject in Semester-I. Signature Not Verified 5 Hereinafter “RRs” Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:17.03.2025 16:52:39 W.P.(C) 11322/2023 Shagun Som (Respondent No. 2) Ekal Dixit (Respondent No. 3) B.Com with statistics as a subject in First Year. B.Sc. Mathematics.

7. Aggrieved by their rejection, the Respondents preferred OA No. 2324/2021 before the Tribunal, contending that the eligibility criteria stipulated in the CGLE Notice was inconsistent with the RRs, which did not prescribe the requirement of studying Statistics in all three years of graduation. The Respondents sought relaxation of the eligibility criteria and reconsideration of their candidature.

8. The Tribunal, vide order dated 22.02.2023, allowed the O.A., holding that the RRs would prevail over the CGLE Notice. The relevant portions of the impugned order are reproduced herein under: “7. We find that the crux of the matter lies in the discrepancy between the eligibility criteria regarding qualifications prescribed under the advertisement vis-a-vis the RRs. The criteria under the advertisement is more stringent than the one prescribed under the RRs. It is a well established law that in case of such a discrepancy, the criteria prescribed under the RRs shall prevail. It has also been highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicants that vide order dated 22.02.2021, the Tribunal had issued notice to the respondents with an interim direction that “In the meantime, if any selections are made in pursuance of the CGL Examination 2019 for the post of SIG-II, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the O.A.” He further states that the present applicants are within the zone of consideration inasmuch their names appear at serial nos.382, 134 and 150 respectively in the Select List against the advertised vacancies.

8. We, therefore, find that the applicants had been selected and their names appeared in the Select List but at the stage of document verification, the aforementioned doubts were raised and that is why their names were not considered. We also find that there was no formal order of rejection qua the applicants. Learned Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:17.03.2025 16:52:39 W.P.(C) 11322/2023 counsel for the applicants has already brought out the fact that there are ample number of vacancies available, therefore, non- availability of vacancies is not an issue in the present case.

9. In the conspectus of the facts brought out above, we find that there is merit in the OA and thus the same is allowed. We hereby direct the respondents to proceed with offer of appointment to the applicants, if they are otherwise found eligible and suitable except for the point raised above. The respondents are also directed to grant consequential relief on notional basis to the applicants vis-a-vis their batchmates at their appropriate merit position. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date C of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

10. No order as to costs.”

9. Aggrieved by the said decision, the SSC, along with other petitioners, filed the present Writ Petition, being W.P. (C) No. 11322/2023, seeking quashing of the order dated 22.02.2023. The Petitioners contend that the eligibility conditions prescribed under the CGLE Notice were binding upon all candidates and that any relaxation thereof, at a later stage, would amount an impermissible alteration of the selection process after its commencement.

10. The core issue arising for adjudication in the present case is whether the eligibility criteria prescribed in the CGLE Notice can override the statutory RRs, 2019 and whether the CGLE Notice imposes an additional qualification beyond the RRs.

11. Mr. Vijay Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that this three-year requirement is essential, considering the nature of duties assigned to a SIG-II. Since the role of SIG-II involves statistical analysis, studying Statistics for all three Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:17.03.2025 16:52:39 W.P.(C) 11322/2023 years is essential to perform the job effectively. The petitioners rely on judgments, including Dhananjay Malik v. State of multiple Uttaranchal6, Maharashtra PSC v. Sandeep Shriram Warade7, Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi8, Shubham Chopra v. UOI9, GNCTD v. Sachin Gupta10, and GNCTD v. Seema Kumari11 to argue that candidates cannot challenge eligibility criteria after participating in the selection process and that recruitment conditions must be uniformly applied. Thus, the petitioners challenge the Tribunal’s order, asserting that the respondents lack the necessary qualifications for the post.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kaushik, learned Counsel for the respondents contends that principle of estoppels due to participation in the selection process does not apply where the recruitment rules have been misconstrued, relying on Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar12 and Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur13. He further argues that the presence of the word “any” in the RRs must be given an expansive interpretation, as held in Dr. Major Meeta Sahai (supra). Further, he submits that a Bachelor’s degree in a stream with one of the stipulated subjects does not imply that the subject must be the main subject or studied in specific years, and the word “with” connotes inclusion, not exclusion, as affirmed in Mamta A Ghodasara v. State of Gujarat14 and Neera Pal v. Central Warehousing