SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



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 TypeDegreeSubjectQualification LevelSpecialization/ Mandatory SubjectUniversity/CollegeDuration From-ToDate of Notification of Result/Issue Of Final MarksheetDivision/ClassResult Type/Result ScoreDate of Degree
EssentialMBBS-MBBS-Graduation-Medical/Dental/Vet/AYUSHDelhi University Delhi/University College of Medical SciencesJul 1997-Dec 200128-12-2001IIndPercentage/5622-02-2003

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top