Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Tushar Rao Gedela, JJ.
Govt. of NCT of Dlehi - Appellant
Versus
Chitra Singh - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7389 of 2020 & CM Appl. 24735 of 2020
Decided On : 07-10-2022
Eligibility criteria set by an employer cannot be relaxed by courts or tribunals unless expressly stated in the advertisement. Courts cannot impose interpretations on recruitment conditions.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment Rules - Conditions of eligibility - The Tribunal's order relaxing the eligibility criteria for the post of Senior Scientific Assistant was challenged. The Court emphasized that the essential qualifications are for the employer to decide, highlighting that relaxation cannot be granted when not stipulated in the original advertisement. (Paras 26, 30, 32)
(B) Judicial Authority - The Court noted that courts cannot impose their interpretations on the eligibility criteria set by the appointing authorities. (Paras 28, 29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner issued an advertisement for the post requiring two years of experience, but the respondent's application was not forwarded due to her lack of eligibility as she fell short of required experience.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was set aside as it improperly relaxed the eligibility criteria, which was not provided for in the advertisement.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to relax the eligibility criteria established in the advertisement.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that eligibility conditions for a post are determined by the employer, and the Tribunal cannot relax these unless explicitly allowed in the advertisement, stating that relaxing eligibility is strictly within the discretion of the appointing authority.
Result: Petition allowed and the Tribunal's order set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges tribunal's order for appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners claim respondent lacks eligibility criteria. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 11) |
| 3. experience certificates considered, with one rejected. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 4. nature of m/s scope enterprises noted as non-qualifying. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. tribunal's relaxation powers limited by advertisement. (Para 23 , 24 , 26 , 28) |
| 6. eligibility conditions decided by employer per supreme court. (Para 25 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. tribunal's relaxation order set aside based on law. (Para 32) |
| 8. petition allowed, tribunal's order overturned. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns order dated 14.10.2019 whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent has been allowed and the Tribunal, by the impugned order, has relaxed the eligibility criteria of two years for the respondent and directed the petitioner to appoint the respondent to the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Documents).
2. Petitioners had issued an advertisement, inter-alia, for the post of Senior Scientific Assistant (Documents) in Forensic Science Laboratory, Post Code: 044/09.
3. The essential experience prescribed by the advertisement was `2 years' experience of analytical method/research therein in the relevant field'.
4. Respondent applied for the said post. The result was declared. The Dossier of the respondent was not sent to the user department by the DSSSB. Respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal by way of an Original Application being OA No. 3212/2010 seeking a prayer for directing DSSSB to send the dossiers of the respondent to the user department.
5. In the counter affidavit filed, the contention of the petitioners was that the respondent had secured marks equal to the persons whose dossiers had been sent. However, since she was younger in age, the person who was senior in age and secured marks equal to the respondent was recommended for appointment to the user department.
6. Subsequently, it was pointed out by the respondent that the person whose dossiers had been sent had not joined and consequently she prayed that her dossiers be sent.
7. In the rejoinder affidavit it was further pointed out by the petitioners that respondent did not satisfy the eligibility criteria and as such could not be appointed.
8. Said petition was disposed of by the Tribunal on 13.03.2012 whereby the user department instead of DSSSB, was directed to take a view on the eligibility of the respondent with regard to the fulfilment of the requisite experience criteria.
9. By order dated 30.11.2012, Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. user department has held that the respondent falls short of requisite experience and has inter-alia held has under:
"19. At this stage, it may be relevant to reproduce extract from the report dated 21.09.2012 of the Committee constituted for the purpose;
"As per Recruitment Rules for the post of SSA (Documents), the committee is of the considered view that:
1. The candidate possesses the requisite essential educational qualification i.e. M.Sc., Forensic Science with Chemistry at B.Sc. level.
2. Out of two years experience of analytical methods/research therein relevant field, it is to mention that she possesses essential experience of one year 11 months in analytical methods at Chemistry Division, FSL Delhi.
Though this experience does not pertain to the relevant field i.e. Document Division even then it may be taken into consideration as nature of duties of this post is to assist the senior officers in the division for their assigned as well as day to day work.
However, it again falls short of one month essential experience. Further to mention that M/s Scope Enterprises confirmed the issuance of certificate and provide appointment letter to corroborate the same. But as per records, it appears that M/s Scope Enterprises deals in:
(i) Mfg. & Dealers in Scientific Controls & Process Equipments
(ii) Consultants for Equip
