Experience in research roles can fulfill statutory eligibility requirements for appointments despite previous denials.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(a) Issue an order or direction to the Respondents to give appointment to the Applicant as being a thoroughly eligible and successful candidate and recommended by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the appointment, in terms of the Recruitment Notice/ Advertisement No. NR/2/2017 (Post Category No. NR/21317) and in the Central Revenues Subordinate Chemical Service (Group “B‟ Non-Gazetted post) Chemical Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015; or

(b). Issue an order or direction to quash the essential qualification/ eligibility criteria for the post of Chemical Assistant in Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) under Ministry of Finance, Government of India, requiring Experience certificate only of the “Listed Private Sector Organization” as per the Recruitment Notice/ Advertisement No. NR/2/2017 (Post Category No. NR/21317) and in the Central Revenues Subordinate Chemical Service (Group “B‟ Non-Gazetted post) Chemical Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015 as being violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India ; or

(c). Issue an order or direction to the Respondents to give appointment to the applicant for the post of Chemical Assistant by relaxing the eligibility criteria, if required in terms of the Recruitment Notice/ Advertisement No. NR/2/2017 (Post Category No. NR/21317) and in the Central Revenues Subordinate Chemical Service (Group “B‟ Non-Gazetted post) Chemical Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015.

(d) Pass such further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon‟ble Tribunal deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case"

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:

2.1. The applicant was selected and recommended by the Staff Selection Commission in 2018 for appointment as Chemical Assistant (Group-B) in the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) and possessed more than the prescribed two years’ work experience obtained from Vidyasagar University, West Bengal, as JRF/SRF leading to Ph.D. in Chemistry. It was submitted that despite a final order dated 04.11.2020 passed in OA No. 1195/2020 directing verification of experience, the respondents deliberately refused appointment on untenable grounds, resulting in prolonged litigation and denial of appointment since 2018.

2.2. Learned counsel contended that such denial was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India , and contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew , (1980) 2 SCC 752 ; Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE , (2005) 9 SCC 779 ; and Food Corporation of India v. Rimjhim , AIR 2019 SC 1954, and therefore, the applicant was entitled to appointment with all consequential benefits.

2.3 Learned counsel for the applicant highlighted the order dated 03.08.2021 by which the Competent Authority amongst the respondents has rejected the case of the applicant by observing as under:-

"In view of the facts and law, I am of the considered view that the applicant does not fulfil the experience criteria in terms of the Recruitment Rules, as per the application made to the Commission and the documents submitted subsequently alongwith the representation, by the applicant in support of his claim of having the requisite experience for the post, have not been found to be valid document on re-consideration. Accordingly, offer of appointment cannot be issued in favour of the applicant based on th