Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1 This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Delhi dated 29 November 2016. The High Court has, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, affirmed a judgment and order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal at its Principal Bench at New Delhi, by which the first
respondent was held to be qualified for appointment to the post of Labour Welfare
Superintendent.
2 An advertisement was issued for inviting applications for various posts in the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi on a competitive basis. Among the posts that were
SignatureadvertisedNot Verified was that of a Labour Welfare Superintendent in the Municipal Corporation..
The qualifications and experience required for the post were prescribed as follows:
“Essential Qualifications:
(1) Degree of a recognized University or
Equivalent.
(2) Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma in Social Work
or Labour Welfare or Industrial Relations or
Personnel Management or in any other allied
subject of recognized University /institution or
equivalent.
Desirable:
(1) Degree in Law of a recognized University or
equivalent.
(2) Experience in the field in responsible capacity
of Labour Welfare/Industrial
Relations/Personnel Management and/or in
allied fields.”
3 The selection process was conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board by way of written examinations. Even after the candidate had appeared for the
examinations, the Board or the appellant retained the authority to cancel their
candidature during the recruitment process, if she/he failed to meet the said eligibility
criteria. The first respondent applied for the post and appeared in the examination
conducted by the Board. He was provisionally short-listed for the Part II examination
upon the declaration of the results of the Part I objective examination. He was,
however, declared not to be eligible for selection.
4 Aggrieved by his non-selection, the first respondent moved the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) contending that he fulfilled the eligibility requirements.
The Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 20 May 2016, came to the conclusion
that the first respondent fulfilled the conditions of eligibility. The first respondent holds
a B.Sc. degree from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and thus, satisfied the first
condition of eligibility. With regard to the second condition, the Tribunal noted that the
first respondent did not claim to have a degree or diploma in Social Work or Labour
Welfare, but that as a student of the MBA degree programme of Maharshi Dayanand
University, Rohtak, he had studied certain subjects which had a bearing on the
eligibility requirements. Accepting the contention of the first respondent, the Tribunal
held that he had studied Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations in the
course of the MBA degree programme. It was on this basis that the first respondent was
held to be eligible and having passed the competitive examination, a direction was
issued for his appointment to the post. This order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by
the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi while rejecting a writ petition instituted by
the appellant.
5 The issue which falls for determination in the appeal is whether the first
respondent fulfills the requirements of eligibility. The advertisement issued by the
appellant specifies that the essential qualifications would consist of (i) a degree of a
recognized University or equivalent; (ii) a post graduate degree/diploma in Social Work,
Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management or in any other allied
subject of a recognized University/institution or equivalent.
6 Mr Ajay Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits
that merely because the first respondent had studied the subjects of Human Resource
Management during the course of the second semester and Industrial Relations and
Labour Legislation during the course of the fourth semester of the MBA degree
programme, would not lead to the inference that he possessed the essential
qualifications prescribed in the advertisement. It was submitted that in the absence of
the first respondent holding a prescribed qualification, both the Tribunal and the High
Court have erred in issuing a direction for his appointment.
7 Opposing these submissions, Mr Kanhaiya Singhal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the first respondent, has made an earnest effort to persuade this Court to
hold that the view which has been adopted by the Tribunal and by the High Court is
correct. Learned counsel submitted that a concurrent view has been taken by both the
Tribunal and the High Court that the first respondent fulfilled the conditions of eligibility
and this should not be interfered with. Apart from this, learned counsel sought to urge
that the eligibility requirements which were stipulated in the advertisement
contemplate the holding of a post graduate degree/diploma in Social Work, Labour
Welfare, Industrial Relations, Personnel Management, or in any other allied subject. He
urged that the MBA degree of the first respondent should be construed as one in an
allied subject, particularly having regard to the nature of the courses undertaken as a
part of the MBA degree programme. In this context, he sought to draw parity between
the subjects which are offered in the course of the degree in Personnel Management
and the subjects which were studied by the first respondent.
8 While assessing merits of the rival contentions, we must at the outset have due
regard to the basis which has been adopted by the first respondent in support of his
contention that he fulfills the eligibility requirements. The categoric position of the first
respondent is that during the course of the MBA degree programme, he had studied the
subjects of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour
Legislation. Having regard to this position, the issue which falls for determination is
whether this would lead the Court to the conclusion that the first respondent fulfills the
eligibility requirements. The eligibility requirements stipulated in the advertisement are
that the candidate must have a post graduate degree or diploma in (i) Social Work; or
(ii) Labour Welfare; or (iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel Management; or (v) in
any other allied subject of a recognized University/institution or equivalent.
9 The first respondent completed the MBA degree programme from Maharshi
Dayanand University, Rohtak. The mark sheets which have been relied upon by the first
respondent indicate that during the course of the second semester, he studied Human
Resource Management as a subject. In the fourth semester, the first respondent had a
course in Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. Studying these two subjects
would not lead to the conclusion that the first respondent holds a post graduate degree
or diploma in the disciplines which have been specifically spelt out in the
advertisement or in any allied subject. The MBA degree cannot be regarded as allied to
a post graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations
or Personnel Management. The recruitment was being made to the service of the
appellant. The advertisement did not specifically provide how equivalence was to be
established between a postgraduate degree/diploma in the subjects specified in the
advertisement and a postgraduate degree/diploma in an allied subject. The appellant
as an employer was best suited to judge whether the degree of the first respondent
was in an allied subject. Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to the
requirements prescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere. We are of the view
that the Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that the first respondent was
qualified merely because he studied two subjects as a part of his MBA degree
programme, namely, Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and
Labour Legislation. The High Court has simply affirmed the view of the Tribunal.
10 For the above reasons, we are of the view that the findings which have been
arrived at by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are erroneous. We accordingly
allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
dated 29 November 2016. In consequence, OA No 1492 of 2013 filed by the first
respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal shall stand dismissed. However,
in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[Indu Malhotra]
[K.M. Joseph]
New Delhi;
July 21, 2020
ITEM NO.104 Virtual Court 4 SECTION XIV-A
Civil Appeal No.232/2020
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KAVINDER & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for vacating stay)
Date : 21-07-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kanishk Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, AOR
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
2 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)