$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 13.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 18.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 9907/2020 & CM APPL. 31584/2020, CM APPL.

39090/2022, CM APPL. 39091/2022, CM APPL. 4321/2025 DR. KRISHNA BIHARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, Mr.

Amartya Ashish Sharan and Mr. Akash Kishore, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj, SPC with Mr.

Soumyadip Chakraborty, Adv.

for UOI.

Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal and Mr. Lekh Raj Singh, Advs. for UPSC.

Mr. Ritesh Khatri, Adv. for R-

3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 23.09.2020 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 96/2017 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the OA preferred by the Petitioner and refused to set aside the selection of Respondent No. 3 and appoint the Petitioner in his stead.

2. Succinctly put, an Advertisement No. 12/2015 was issued by Respondent No. 2/UPSC in the year 2015 regarding vacancy of 5 posts of Regional Directors in the National Centre of Organic Farming, Ghaziabad, Ministry of Agriculture out of which one post was reserved for Physically Challenged Persons with Disability. The requisite educational and experience qualifications were stipulated in the advertisement itself. The applications were thereafter processed by Respondent No. 2 and the Selection Committee recommended the names of Shri Tapan Kumar Ghosh, Ajay Singh Rajput, Dushyant Gehlot and Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 was placed at Serial No. 2 in the recommended list and the Petitioner herein was placed in the Reserve List at Serial No. 1. The Petitioner preferred the subject OA 96/2017 thereby contending that Respondent No. 3 did not possess the prescribed qualifications despite which he was selected. Petitioner prayed that the appointment of Respondent No. 3 be set aside on account of Respondent No. 3 failing to meet the prescribed qualifications in terms of the advertisement and prayed that the Petitioner be appointed in place of Respondent No. 3.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the O.A. No. 96/2017 preferred by the Petitioner thereby challenging the selection of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Regional Director in National Centre of Organic Farming, Ghaziabad. It was noted that as per the counter affidavit of UPSC, Respondent No. 3 held the requisite qualifications and was treated to be qualified. The learned Tribunal noting that the prescribed qualification consisted of a wide range of disciplines and that the Selection Committee after considering the materials found Respondent No. 3 to be qualified, dismissed the OA preferred by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as a Regional Director in National Centre for Organic Farming, Ghaziabad was erroneous as Respondent No. 3 neither possessed the necessary educational qualifications nor the experience required in terms of the Advertisement No. 12/2015 issued by the UPSC. He submitted that in terms of the Advertisement, the candidate was required to possess the qualification being “M.Sc. in Microbiology from a recognised university or Institute or M.Sc. in Botany with specialization in Plant Pathology or Microbiology or Mycology from a recognized University or Institute OR M.Sc. in Agriculture with specialization in Soil Science or Agricultural Chemistry or Agronomy or Microbiology or Plant Pathology or Horticulture or Agricultural Extension from a recognized University or Institute.”

5. He submitted that while Respondent No. 3 claims to possess an M.Sc. in Agriculture with a specialisation in Horticulture, however, as per the certificate issued by the Himachal Pradesh Krishi