THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.19917 OF 2020

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

24.12.2019, passed in O.A.No.314 of 2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners and Ms. P. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Ms. N. Shoba, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have issued an vide advertisement Advertisement No.NFC/01/2010, dated Nil, inviting applications for filling up the post of Attendant. As per the said advertisement, one must possess the educational qualification of tenth class pass. The respondent has responded to the said advertisement and participated in the selection process. However, the case of the respondent was not considered for appointment to the post of Attendant, as he was having higher qualification. Thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued to fill up the said post. Aggrieved by his non-selection, the respondent has approached the vide Tribunal by filing the subject O.A. and the Tribunal impugned order, dated 24.12.2019, was pleased to allow the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that when once the respondent has suppressed about his higher qualification, the question of considering his case for appointment to the post of Attendant would not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.12.2019, and allow the Writ Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that the petitioners have issued Advertisement No.NFC/01/2010 inviting applications for filling up the post of Attendant and in the said advertisement, the educational qualifications prescribed for appointment to the said post was only tenth class pass. No one having higher qualification was prevented to apply for the said post. Admittedly, the respondent has participated in the selection process and he was selected, however, on an erroneous ground that he was having higher qualification, his case was not considered. The Tribunal has examined the advertisement and having observed that nowhere in the advertisement it is stated that one should not have higher qualification than what has been prescribed, held that non- consideration of the case of the respondent was an arbitrary exercise and allowed the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of the respondent, as admittedly, in Advertisement No.NFC/01/2010 nowhere it is specified that one must not have higher qualification than what has been prescribed. The Tribunal has examined Advertisement No.NFC/01/2010 and came to a conclusion that the said advertisement does not prevent persons possessing higher qualification from applying to the post of Attendant. Admittedly, the respondent has participated in the selection process and he was selected. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of Attendant. The Tribunal has also rightly directed the petitioners to incorporate a clause in future advertisements to the effect that the persons with higher qualifications than what has been prescribed would be ineligible. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 24.12.2019.

7. Accordingly, the