INDER JIT GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The appellants before us are serving in the Zoological Survey of India under the control of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Most of them were appointed as Assistant Zoologist by direct recruitment and some of them were promoted to the post of Assistant Zoologist under the Zoological Survey of India (Central Service Class I and Class II Posts ) Recruitment Rules, 1963, as amended from time to time. They contended that they were governed by the Recruitment Rules, which prescribed only the Master's degree in Zoology as essential qualification for the post of Assistant Zoologist and experience relating to the posts above that of the Assistant Zoologist would be Scientist-B and so on. Annexure II to the Recruitment Rules provides the norms for recruitment to the scientific posts as under :

(2.) The Recruitment rules also imposed age limit, which was relaxable up to 5 years for Government servants. They contended that by amendment made to the Recruitment Rules in 1987 drastic changes were effected in regard to the qualification to the detriment of the vested rights of the appellants.

(3.) An advertisement was made on 4-2-1988 in the local newspaper by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to fill up the post of Scientist-SD stating that essential qualification as First Class Master's Degree in Zoology with 5 years' experience in Faunistic Survey / Taxonomy or Doctorate in Zoology. Age limit mentioned therein was relaxable up to 5 years in respect of Government servants unless stated otherwise. In view of the several conditions imposed in the said notification, though under the relevant rules, they were entitled to apply for the post they did not apply for the same. However, they made certain representations to the Government. At that stage, they approached the Tribunal on the ground that the relaxation regarding qualification and age ought to have been extended to the appellants in terms of Recruitment Rules as in force in 1963; that the qualification and age limit prescribed in the impugned rules of 1987 is arbitrary and has no reasonable nexus to the concerned post inasmuch as for higher posts such restrictions have been removed and lesser qualifications have been prescribed and that relaxing basic educational qualification and age limit subsequent to original advertisement on 4-2-88 without any re-advertisement amounts to denial of equal opportunity to all eligible candidates. The appellants sought for quashing of the relevant Recruitment Rules and the action taken pursuant to the advertisement dated 4-2-88 and further direction not to give effect to the result of the said interviews which has been held and to allow the appellant and other candidates to apply for the posts of Scientist-SD for appointment to the said posts and to incorporate such relaxed basic educational qualifications and age limit in the prescribed rules.