ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A) The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

“ Reliefs sough t (i) The UPSC’s impugned communications vide Annexure A-1.1 and A-1.2 may be struck down;

(ii) The Respondents may be directed to treat the Applicant fulfilling the requisite qualifications and consider him for appointment as per his merit in the competitive examination, and/or (iii) Any other relief in the Applicant’s favour as deemed just and fair in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Interim relief Pending final decision of this OA, the UPSC may be directed to admit the Applicant to competitive examination provisionally subject to final outcome of the OA.”

2. As an ad interim measure, vide order dated 24.08.2023, this Tribunal had granted the following relief to the applicant:-

“13. In view of the foregoing facts, we are of the considered opinion that learned counsel for the applicant has prima facie made out a case for allowing the applicant to appear provisionally in the interview scheduled to be held on 28.08.2023.

We accordingly, modify the interim order dated 23.06.2023 passed by a Single Bench of this Tribunal to read as under:-

“We direct respondent no.1, i.e., Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to allow the applicant to participate in the interview process for the post of Senior Design Officer, Grade I (Engineering) that is scheduled to be held on 28.08.2023.

However, it is made clear that the participation of the applicant in the said interview process is purely provisional in nature and subject to final outcome of the O.A.”

3. Thereafter, the matter was heard at length on 22.11.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant argued as under:-

3.1 In response to an advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) vide No.19/2022, the applicant submitted an online application dated 26-10-2022 for the post of Senior Design Officer Grade-I (Engineering) in Ministry of Defence, Directorate of Civilian Personnel, Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence Navy.

3.2 The essential qualification prescribed in the advertisement is "Degree in Mechanical/Marine Engineering from a recognized University or equivalent”. The term “equivalent" has been explained in the advertisement itself as “any Technical Institutes recognized by AICTE/UGC and not to be construed as educational qualification”.

3.3 The applicant falls in the category of candidates having "equivalent" qualification. He has successfully completed Sections "A" and “B" of the course study of Institution of Engineers [hereinafter called IE) and has been admitted as the Associate Member of the Institute of Engineers (AMIE).

3.4 The applicant was enrolled with IE in the year 2010, completed Section "A" on 25-3-2014, Section "B" on 9-9-2019 and was granted final certificate of completion on 02-11-

2020.

3.5 Before his enrolment with IE in 2010, the applicant had already obtained three years’ Diploma in Mechanical Engineering in the year 2006 from G.B. Pant Polytechnic, Okhla, New Delhi.

3.6 UPSC has not given any specific reason in the impugned Annexures A-1.1 and A-1.2 as to why AMIE is not considered as equivalent qualification, yet the applicant has been able to make out something from the UPSC's cryptic remarks in these documents. Perhaps, the UPSC's view is that only that qualification is acceptable which is recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and All-India Council of Technical Education (AICTE).

3.7 It is the applicant's respectful submission that UPSC has considered his case superficially without considering the history of IE, the recognition granted to it from time to time by the Central Ministry of Education (now known as Human Resource Development) and even by AICTE. Had there been proper