RAVINDER CHAUHAN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (Ballistic) (hereafter referred to as "the post") is aggrieved by the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT") dated 11.05.2011 in O.A. No.529/2011, repelling his challenge to the selection of the fourth respondent, Ms. Babita Gulia. He alleges that she does not fulfill the essential experience parameters advertised for the post.

(2.) The brief facts are that the Petitioner was recruited as Laboratory Assistant on 13.06.1996 under the second Respondent, the Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (hereafter the "CFSL"). He was promoted to the post of Scientific Assistant on 23.08.1996. The third Respondent (the Union Public Service Commission, hereafter "UPSC") issued a public advertisement in June 2009 inviting applications for the post. The prescribed educational qualification for the post was a Masters' degree in mathematics or physics or chemistry from a recognized University or equivalent. The essential experience was three years' in a laboratory in firearms and explosives. The Petitioner applied, and was called for the interview. After the selections were over, the UPSC issued letters to the fourth and fifth Respondents informing them that they had been recommended for selection to the post. These letters also stated that the offer of appointment would be made after Government had satisfied itself of their suitability for the posts in all respects.

(3.) The Petitioner applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On the basis of the material and information secured, he approached the CAT challenging his non-selection and the selection of the fourth and fifth respondents. It was alleged that the Director of the CFSL, the second Respondent, had determined the ineligibility of the fourth and the fifth Respondents as they did not fulfill the requirements of either the educational qualification or eligibility criteria. The note recorded in this regard in the office of the second Respondent stated that the fourth respondent "is not having the required essential experience in the field of Explosive, as is evident by the Experience Certificate issued by her department i.e. FSL, Madhuban Haryana " Likewise, in the case of the fifth respondent, the comment was that he "is lacking in all respects as neither he is possessing the required essential academic qualification nor the requisite experience i.e. 3 Years experience in Fire arms & Explosives." It was argued that this note, and the further report of the committee constituted by the CFSL-CBI, the ultimate employer, categorically found these candidates to be ineligible and that their selection, therefore, was contrary to law. It was submitted that besides, the selection procedure was vitiated because Dr. Bhattacharya, who judged the qualifications and experience of the candidates, was biased in favour of the fifth respondent.