Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rekha Palli, J.
Geeta Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Public Enterprises Selection Board - Respondent
W.P.(C) 12516 of 2022
Decided On : 31-10-2022
Selection criteria for public sector appointments must consider all qualifications and experience, not just the stated preference, ensuring fair treatment of candidates.
Headnote:(A) Public Enterprises Selection Board Guidelines - Misinterpretation in shortlisting candidates for Member (Finance) position - Preference should not ignore qualifications and experience of all applicants - Court quashed shortlist citing breach of parameters set in the advertisement. (Paras 5, 10, 17-24)
(B) Preference Clause - Interpretation of preference given to certain candidates must include consideration of seniority and pay scale - Exclusion of qualified candidates from selection process was arbitrary. (Paras 18-26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, Director (Finance) at a PSU, challenged exclusion from shortlisted candidates for Member (Finance) despite fulfilling eligibility criteria, citing arbitrary interpretation of qualifications and past experience. The initial shortlist did not consider her higher payscale and board-level position. (Paras 4-9)
Findings of Court:
The shortlisted candidates did not meet the requirements as the respondent misapplied the 'preference' clause in the advertisement, leading to the exclusion of a qualified candidate. (Paras 21-24)
Issues: Did the respondents violate the advertising qualifications and seniority provisions while shortlisting candidates for the position of Member (Finance)? (Paras 17-18)
Ratio Decidendi: The term 'preference' regarding Chartered Accountants must consider the context of other qualifications; higher pay scale and board-level status are significant factors in candidate selection. (Paras 18-24)
Result: The list of shortlisted candidates was quashed, and a fresh list must be prepared. (Paras 27-29)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's qualifications and application details. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on arbitrary exclusion. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondents' defense regarding preference for chartered accountants. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. interpretation of 'preference' in selection criteria. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 5. court's analysis on qualification preference. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. quashing of shortlisted candidates' list. (Para 25 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT
Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)--The petitioner, who is working as Director (Finance) with M/s HLL Lifecare Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), has approached this Court inter alia seeking quashing of the list of shortlisted candidates issued by the respondent no.1 for the selection of Member (Finance) in the respondent no.2 organisation/Airports Authority of India (AAI). The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the respondent no.1 to re-issue the list of shortlisted candidates in accordance with the Public Enterprises Selection Board ("PESB"), so as to include her name.
2. It is the petitioner's case that, despite fulfilling the necessary eligibility criteria for the post of Director (Finance) SAIL, as per the advertisement issued by the respondent no.1 on 05.02.2021, she has not been shortlisted for interview for the appointment to the aforesaid post, only on the ground that she is not a Chartered Accountant, but a Cost Accountant, even though, the said qualification falls within the parameters prescribed in the advertisement.
3. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, the brief factual matrix as emerging from the record may be noted hereinbelow.
4. The petitioner is working as a Director (Finance) with M/s HLL Lifecare Limited, a Schedule-B Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), drawing a payscale of Rs.160000-290000 (pre-revised Rs.65,000/- to Rs.75,000/-), w.e.f. 20.08.2018, when she joined the said organisation after serving for a long number of years in Steel Authority of India (SAIL). The petitioner is a qualified Cost Accountant, and holds a PhD degree as well.
5. The respondent no.1 is the Selection Board, responsible for making Board Level appointments in Central Public Sector Enterprises ("CPSE"). The respondent no.2 is a `Miniratna' (Category-1) CPSE under the administrative jurisdiction of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, primarily responsible for the development, expansion and modernisation of airports in India.
6. On 05.02.2021,the respondent no.1 issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Director (Finance), SAIL. The petitioner, being desirous of selection to the said post, submitted her application on 10.04.2021 for consideration of the same. On 17.11.2021, when the list of candidates shortlisted for the interview was released by the respondent no.1, the petitioner did not find her name therein.
7. Being aggrieved thereby, she preferred an OA No. 2556/2021 before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT"). By taking into consideration the petitioner's plea that the shortlisting was done in violation of the laid down PESB guidelines as her seniority, payscale and experience were ignored by respondent no.1 while preparing the list of shortlisted candidates, the learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 17.11.2021, while issuing notice in the OA, directed that any selection to the post of Director (Finance) at the respondent no.1, would be subject to the outcome of the OA. The said OA is still pending adjudication before the learned Tribunal.
8. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.1, on 17.01.2022, issued an advertisement inviting applications for selection to the post of Member (Finance) in the respondent no.2, who was to be in overall charge of the financial operation of the organisation, and was also to be responsible for formulating policies and strategies for the growth of the organisation. The advertisement further stipulated that the applicant for the said post should be a full-time functional Director in the B
