A higher qualification cannot substitute a mandatory basic essential qualification prescribed under recruitment rules, and an employer has the authority to verify eligibility at any stage of the recruitment process regardless of any previous participation or erroneous past practices.

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Since a common question of facts and law arises in the present O.A.s, they were being heard together and are now being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from O.A. No. 2401/2023 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. In O.A. No. 2401/2023, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“i. To declare the impugned clause i.e. clause (q) of the General Instructions of the detailed Advertisement No. 15/2022 being invalid;

ii. To consider the Applicant's B.A. (Additional) degree for the eligibility criteria for the post of PRT (Music) and to consider the degree of M.A. (Music) of the Applicant also; and

iii. To declare the Applicant eligible for the interview for the post of PRT (Music) vide detailed Advertisement No. 15/2022 and direction to the Respondent to conduct the interview of the Applicant as early as possible; and

iv.Pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA arises from the arbitrary, unreasonable and malafide action of the respondent in declaring the applicant ineligible for interview for the post of PRT (Music) under Advertisement No. 15/2022, despite her fulfilling all prescribed qualifications, including Senior Secondary with requisite marks and B.A. and M.A. in Music from a UGC-recognized university.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that while the advertisement only excluded Diploma holders and did not specify what would constitute “equivalent” to B.A. in Music, the respondent, at the stage of interview, introduced an undisclosed and vague interpretation by treating “Music” mentioned as an “optional” subject in the marksheet format as disqualifying, without any prior notification or clarification.

3.2. Learned counsel contended that the applicant, having successfully cleared the written examination, was issued admit card and interview call letter, travelled to Kolkata at her own expense, and was denied interview solely on the basis of a notice pasted outside the venue on the interview date, which is ex facie illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

3.3. Learned counsel further contended that THE identical degrees were accepted in previous recruitments, including in the Applicant’s own case in 2014, and even presently similarly placed candidates had been appointed, thereby rendering the respondent’s action discriminatory.

3.4. Learned counsel argued that the rejection also ignores the fact that the applicant pursued M.A. (Music) on the basis of the same degree, establishing its validity, and the respondent has failed to produce any specific order or policy change justifying such exclusion, nor responded to representations made by the applicant. Hence, the impugned action has caused grave prejudice by depriving the applicant of a fair opportunity after qualifying the examination, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, thereby compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.

3.5. Learned counsel drew our attention to the Degree in question and further submitted that vide order dated 25.07.2023, placed at page no. 56, in an earlier selection process relating to the year 2014, the applicant was allowed to participate in selection process, including the interview; though, she remained unsuccessful. However, in the present matter, the applicant has been denied the opportunity to appear in the interview. Learned