IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjiv Khanna, Chander Shekhar, JJ.
Union Public Service Commission - Appellant
Versus
Tarun Arora - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3003 of 2016, CM Nos. 12596 of 2016 and 2359 of 2017
Decided On : 01-02-2017
JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral)--The petitioner-Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) impugns the order dated 27th January, 2016 whereby OA No. 1051/2014 filed by Dr. Tarun Arora, the respondent before us, has been allowed. The impugned order directs that the respondent should be considered for the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacology).
2. The respondent had approached the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) by way of aforesaid OA after his representations dated 17th February, 2014 and 20th February, 2014 were considered and rejected by the UPSC by the order dated 24th March, 2014. The said order dated 24th March, 2014 was passed by the UPSC pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal in OA No. 925/2014 titled Dr. Tarun Arora vs. UPSC & Ors.
3. The present controversy pertains to the online application form filled by the respondent for the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacology). The relevant portion of the details pertaining to the educational qualifications filled by the respondent in the online application form read as under:
Educational Qualification (s):
| Qualification Type | Degree | Subject | Qualification Level | Specialization/ Mandatory Subject | University/College | Duration From-To | Date of Notification of Result/Issue Of Final Marksheet | Division/Class | Result Type/Result Score | Date of Degree |
| Essential | MBBS | - | MBBS- | Graduation-Medical/Dental/Vet/AYUSH | Delhi University Delhi/University College of Medical Sciences | Jul 1997-Dec 2001 | 28-12-2001 | IInd | Percentage/56 | 22-02-2003 |
4. The respondent, as per the aforesaid declaration, had stated that he had obtained MBBS Graduation-Medical/Dental/Vet/AYUSH from the College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi. The date of the degree was 22nd February, 2003 and the final mark sheet was issued on 28th December, 2001. The respondent had not disclosed or stated any particulars of his post graduate qualification.
5. The essential qualifications as specified in the advertisement had stipulated:
"QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL:
A. EDUCATIONAL:
(i) Same as in item No.10 above.
(ii) Post Graduate degree in the concerned specialty i.e. M.D.(Pharmacology), MD (Pharmacology & 5 OA No.1051/2014 Therapeutics), Ph D (Pharmacology), D Sc (Pharmacology) or equivalent. (For equivalence of DNB qualifications with MD/MS or DM/M.Ch. the candidates holding DNB qualifications would need to get their qualification verified by NBE as to whether it is as per the requirement of the Gazette notification No.MCI-12(2)/2010-Med. Misc. Dated 11.6.2012 and produce such verification certificate at the time of interview.
B. EXPERIENCE: Three years' Teaching experience in the concerned specialty (i.e. Pharmacology) as Lecturer/Tutor/Registrar/Demostrator/Sr. Resident after the requisite post graduate degree qualification. (The teaching experience in any other post like the post of DGMO/MO shall not be considered for eligibility purpose for recruitment to the Teaching posts).
6. The respondent's candidature was rejected as the minimum qualification prescribed for the post as per the advertisement, was an MBBS degree along with a Post Graduate Degree in the concerned speciality i.e. MD (Pharmacology), MD (Pharmacology & Therapeutics), Ph.D. (Pharmacology), DSc.(Pharmacology) or equivalent. Accordingly, the respondent was not shortlisted and called for the interview for selection.
7. The respondent had thereupon filed OA No. 925/2014 and by an interim order, he was permitted to appear in the interview, subject to the outcome of the said OA.
8. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has noted that the respondent had produced his Post Graduation Certificate which is in the form of a degree, certifying that he was a Doctor of Medicine having qualified in the examination held in 2007. For the sake of clarity, we would like to reproduce the findings and reasoning of the Tribunal for allowing the prayer made by the respondent, which reads:
"8. This leaves us in no doubt that the applicant is indeed qua
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.