Chandigarh Administration v. Pardeep Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Smt. Meena Aggarwal and others ---Respondents C.W.P. No. 1597 of 2001 Mohd. Afaq Alam and others Versus Chandigarh Administration and others -----Petitioners ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the U.T. Mr. J.N. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 1. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 1514, 1515, 1516 and 1597 of 2001. The first three writ petitions have been filed by the Chandigarh Administration and the last one has been preferred by some candidates who participated in the selection process and succeeded in securing the appointment as Lecturer in Punjab C.W.P. No. 1514 of 2001 -2- Engineering College. However, in both the sets of writ petitions, the prayer has been made to set aside the common order dated

04.10.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal') while disposing of four respective O.As. filed by various persons. The Tribunal has quashed the note incorporated by the Chandigarh Administration-petitioner in the advertisement on the rationale that there is no such qualification prescribed in the Rules, which has been introduced by the note in the advertisement. Brief facts which have led to the filing of the petitions are that on the requisition sent by the Chandigarh Administration, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) issued an advertisement on

26.01.1991 inviting application for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Civil Engineering at the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the PEC'). A number of candidates applied but many of them were not called for the interview because they did not answer the qualification given in a 'Note' inserted by the advertisement which was over and above the statutory qualifications provided by the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh (Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987. The note which is at the centre of the controversy and is considered extraneous to the qualifications prescribed by the Recruitment Rules, reads as under: “Educational & Other Qualifications required for direct Recruits:- ESSENTIAL: C.W.P. No. 1514 of 2001 -3- 1) First Class Master's Degree in the appropriate field in Engineering/ Technology from a recognised University or equivalent; First Class Bachelor's Degree in the appropriate field in Engineering/ Technology, followed by Master's Degree in the relevant subject from a recognized University or equivalent. ii) 1 year professional practical/ teaching experience. Note 1: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the U.P.S.C. in case of candidates otherwise well qualified. Note: 2: The qualification (a) regarding experience is/ are relaxable at the discretion of the U.P.S.C. in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes if, at any stage of selection, the U.P.S.C. is of the opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these communities possessing requisite experience are not likely to be available to fill up the vacancies reserved for them. DESIRABLE: i) Doctorate Degree in the relevant field of Engineering/ Technology from a recognised C.W.P. No. 1514 of 2001 -4- University or equivalent. II) Full Membership of any recognised institution of Engineers.” ........”Note: Specialization required Surveying/ Environment Engg./ Soil Mechanics & Foundations Engg. Experimental Hydraulics or Water Resources Engg. (ii) One year's professional practical/ teaching experience.” In pursuance of the aforesaid note, interviews were carried and selections were made. However, applicant-respondent approached the Tribunal and succeeded in persuading the Tribunal that no additional qualification could have been prescribed by incorporating the aforesaid Note. Accordingly the Tribunal directed for holding interviews afresh by ignoring the note. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from following portion of paras 8 and 9 which reads thus: “.......8. In our considered opinion, it is totally an arbitrary interpretation of the statutory rules in the manner it suits to the said respondents whereas there is no provision under the rules to ask for such like specialization, though power to relax is stipulated in the statutory recruitment rules. Therefore, such like specialization could not be introduced just by adding a note in the advertisement. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of U.P.S.C. has also been unable to satisfy us that there was any power vested with respondent 1, 2 C.W.P. No. 1514 of 2001 -5- and 4 to deviate from the statutory recruitment rules in this fashion by adding a special note in the advertisement which is against the rules framed under the appropriate legislation. By doing so, respondents have usurped the powers of legislature which cannot be appreciated.

9. We have also gone through the advertisement (Annexure A-2). The advertisement is a consolidated one, issued for the posts of Lecturer in various disciplines such as Civil Engineering, Electronics and Electrical Communication Engineering, Aeronautical Engineering/ Technology and Mechanical Engineering/ Technology etc. We find that excepting posts of Lecturer in Civil Engineering, no such note has been added. We thus, find that by conspicuously adding such a note only in case of advertised posts of Lecturer in Civil Engineering respondents have exercised extra-ordinary powers which is against the statutory rules and as such, the said note is illegal and arbitrary, thus, liable to be quashed.” When the matter came for consideration before the Motion Bench, the writ petition was admitted and operation of the order passed by the Tribunal was stayed in respect of the candidates appointed in pursuance of the advertisement dated 26.01.1991. Accordingly, the selected candidates have kept on working on the C.W.P. No. 1514 of 2001 -6- post of Lecturers. It is appropriate to notice that at the time of motion hearing on 31.01.2001, a Division Bench of this Court recorded the contention of the counsel for the Chandigarh Administration and was of the view that the candidates who were appointed as Lecturers in Civil Engineering in 1993 were not impleaded as party-respondents and therefore, no order prejudicial to their right could have been passed by the Tribunal. The Division Bench expressing a prima facie opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from the aforesaid legal infirmity and was liable to be set aside in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prabodh Verma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1985 SC 167 . The operation of the judgment of the Tribunal was stayed and the same was affirmed while admitting the writ petition. It has now been brought to our notice that the defect of joining the necessary parties has not been cured. Those who have been selected, also filed C.W.P. No. 1597 of 2001, which was also ordered to be heard along with other pending writ petitions. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that those who had filed O.A., have already joined elsewhere and even some of the selected persons are not in position as Lecturers in Civil Engineering. According to Mr. J.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (in C.W.P. No. 1514-CAT of 2001), the original applicants have already joined elsewhere and no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating the controversy. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in C.W.P. No. 1514 of 2001 -7- setting aside the appointment at the back of the selected candidates like Mohd. Afaq Alam and Shakti Kumar who have filed C.W.P. No. 1597 of 2001. In paragraph Nos. 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of C.W.P. No. 1597 of 2001, it has been clearly asserted that the order of the selections and appointments has been set aside by the Tribunal at their back without impleading them as party-respondents. Therefore, the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Prabodh Verma's case (supra) would clearly cover the issue. Moreover, a statement on behalf of the original applicant has been made which shows that the original applicants have no interest in pursuing the instant petitions. Even otherwise selections and appointments are of

1993. As a sequel to the above discussion, these petitions succeed and the order of the Tribunal dated 4.10.2000 is set aside. Keeping in view the peculiar facts that the selection and appointment was made in 1993, we do not propose to remand of the case to the Tribunal to adjudicate afresh after impleadment of the necessary parties. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 21, 2010 Atul