Point of Law: Post of Labour Welfare Superintendent - Essential Qualifications - Eligibility requirements stipulated in the advertisement are that the candidate must have a post graduate degree or diploma in (i) Social Work; or (ii) Labour Welfare; or (iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel Management; or (v) in any other allied subject of a recognized University/institution or equivalent.

JUDGMENT

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. - This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dated 29 November 2016. The High Court has, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, affirmed a judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal at its Principal Bench at New Delhi, by which the first respondent was held to be qualified for appointment to the post of Labour Welfare Superintendent.

2. An advertisement was issued for inviting applications for various posts in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on a competitive basis. Among the posts that were advertised was that of a Labour Welfare Superintendent in the Municipal Corporation..

The qualifications and experience required for the post were prescribed as follows:

"Essential Qualifications:

(1) Degree of a recognized University or Equivalent.

(2) Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma in Social Work or Labour Welfare or Industrial Relations or Personnel Management or in any other allied subject of recognized University /institution or equivalent.

Desirable:

(1) Degree in Law of a recognized University or equivalent.

(2) Experience in the field in responsible capacity of Labour Welfare/Industrial Relations/Personnel Management and/or in allied fields."

3. The selection process was conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board by way of written examinations. Even after the candidate had appeared for the examinations, the Board or the appellant retained the authority to cancel their candidature during the recruitment process, if she/he failed to meet the said eligibility criteria. The first respondent applied for the post and appeared in the examination conducted by the Board. He was provisionally short-listed for the Part II examination upon the declaration of the results of the Part I objective examination. He was, however, declared not to be eligible for selection.

4. Aggrieved by his non-selection, the first respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) contending that he fulfilled the eligibility requirements. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 20 May 2016, came to the conclusion that the first respondent fulfilled the conditions of eligibility. The first respondent holds a B.Sc. degree from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and thus, satisfied the first condition of eligibility. With regard to the second condition, the Tribunal noted that the first respondent did not claim to have a degree or diploma in Social Work or Labour Welfare, but that as a student of the MBA degree programme of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, he had studied certain subjects which had a bearing on the eligibility requirements. Accepting the contention of the first respondent, the Tribunal held that he had studied Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations in the course of the MBA degree programme. It was on this basis that the first respondent was held to be eligible and having passed the competitive examination, a direction was issued for his appointment to the post. This order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi while rejecting a writ petition instituted by the appellant.

5. The issue which falls for determination in the appeal is whether the first respondent fulfills the requirements of eligibility. The advertisement issued by the appellant specifies that the essential qualifications would consist of (i) a degree of a recognized University or equivalent; (ii) a post graduate degree/diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management or in any other allied subject of a recognized University/institution or equivalent.

6. Mr Ajay Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that merely because the first respondent had studied the subjects of Human Resource Management during the course of the second semester and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation during the course o