Sanjay Kumar Manjul vs Chairman, UPSC

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(SC) 842

2006(7) Supreme 304
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Sanjay Kumar Manjul—Appellant
versus
The Chairman, UPSC & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4098 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26297 of 2005)
With
Civil Appeal No. 4099 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4976 of 2006)
Decided on 13-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Vikas Singh ASG, Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocates, Alok Gupta, Rudreshwar Singh, V.K. Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, K.V. Viswanathan, B. Ragunathan, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavamni, G. Balaji, (for M/s. Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.), Anant Vijay Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli, Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Hetu Arora, Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Recruitment to post of Superintending Archaeologist—Appellant and respondent No. 4 were among applicants for the post—Respondent No. 4 was not considered by Union Public Service Commission on premise that he did not fulfil essential qualification—Four applicants were selected through interview—Respondent filed original application before Central Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed—By impugned order High Court allowed writ—Appeal—Question raised was whether experience in Epigraphy could be considered to be "field experience in Archeology" —One of the essential qualifications concerning respondent was diploma in Archaeology with three years field experience or field experience of at least five years in Archaeology and knowledge of monuments and antiquities—Epigraphy was study of written matters recorded on hard and durable material —Fourth respondent was an expert of inscription only in language of Tamil—Even in common parlance Archaeology and Epigraphy contained two different disciplines—Fourth respondent could not be said holding requisite qualification and thus was not eligible to hold the post—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
       Held : We have noticed hereinbefore that even in common parlance Archaeology and Epigraphy contain two different disciplines. It is used both in the broader and narrower sense. Although the term Archaeology may include a science of Epigraphy, for the purpose of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the regulations framed thereunder, essential qualifications required for holding the post may have to be construed differently. (Para 37)
       Upon interpretation of the terms, this Court is satisfied that the Fourth Respondent did not hold the requisite essential qualifications and, thus, was not eligible to hold the post. Furthermore, we do not have sufficient materials to hold as to on what basis, the Archaeological Survey of India opined differently in the cases of persons named in Ground G of the writ petition of the First Respondent. We may, however, notice that the same has been explained. Mr. Viswanathan submitted that no explanation has been offered in respect of Dr. Ramesh. We refrain ourselves from going into the said question, simply on the proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India carries with it a positive concept and the equality clause contained therein cannot be said to have any application in a case of illegality. (Para 38)
       For the views we have taken, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to advert to the other contentions raised by the learned counsel.(Para 39)
       For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.(Para 40)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The Archaeological Survey of India is a department of Archaeology of the Government of India. The post of Superintending Archaeologist fell vacant. Sanjay Kumar Manjul (Appellant) and Dr. S. Rajavelu, Respondent No.4 herein applied therefor. An advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to the said post. 169 applications were received therefor. 16 applicants including that of Sanjay Kumar Manjul were interviewed. Four of them had been selected on 04.08.2004. Indisputably, the case of Dr. S. Rajavelu was not considered by the Union Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission) on the premise that he did not fulfill the essential qualifications requisite therefor.

3. An original application was filed by some candidates before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, marked as O.A. No. 1899 of 2004, which was dismissed by an order dated 15.07.2005.

4. Dr. S. Rajavelu also filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, which was marked as O.A. No.720 of 2004. By an order dated 28.04.2005, the said original application was also dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras. Even till the time of filing of the said original applications and writ petition, selection process of the candidates was not finalized and by an order dated 21.07.2005, the High Court passed an interim order on the following terms :

"...if any appointment is made in the meantime, such appointment shall be subject to result of the present writ petition and it shall be so indicated clearly in the appointment order that if ultimately the petitioner succeeds in the present writ petition, such appointment shall be liable to be quashed, returnable within three weeks. Private notice is also permitted."

6. The Archaeological Survey of India, however, issued unconditional offer of appointment to the selected candidates, inter alia, stating :

"I am directed to inform that on the recommendations of the Union Public Service Commission, the President is pleased to offer you the post of Superintending Archaeologist (G.C.S. Group A Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15200/- in the Archaeological Survey of India. Your pay will be fixed in accordance with the normal rules or instructions issued by the Government and you will also be entitled to draw dearness and other allowances at the rates admissible and subject to the rules and orders governing the grant of such allowances, in force, from time to time."

7. The Appellant herein was not impleaded as a party in the said writ petition. By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ petition of the Fourth Respondent was allowed.

8. Before the High Court as also before us, the question raised was as to whether experience in Epigraphy may be considered to be field experience in Archaeology.

9. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the Appellants, in the respective appeals, submitted that having regard to the extant rules, field experience in Epigraphy would not satisfy the test of essential qualifications for appointment to the post of the Superintending Archaeologist. The expressions Archaeology and Epigraphy, it was urged, mean two different disciplines and in fact not only the scope of study thereof are different, their cadres are also distinct and different.

10. It was submitted that the Commission as also the Archaeological Survey of India being experts bodies, the High Court should not have ordinarily interfered with the decision taken by the department as Archaeology and Epigraphy constitute two different disciplines.

11. In any event, the Commission having short-listed the candidates providing for better meritorious candidates, the writ petition of the Fourth Respondent should not have been allowed. It was also urged that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 842

Cases Referred (4)