UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. JAI SINGH MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed by the Union Public Service Commission, the 2nd respondent in the Original Application filed by the 1st respondent herein. The Original Application was filed seeking to quash Annexure-A9 Office Memandum, by which the 4th respondent was appointed as Direct of the National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology and Training (NIFPHATT), Kochi under the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. The Government of India had, as per Annexure-A2 Circular dated 11.8.2016, invited applications to fill up the post of Direct in the NIFPHATT from candidates possessing the requisite qualification, which are as under:- Post Graduate Diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai equivalent; (ii)Possessing seven years experience in Managerial Capacity Fish Processing Technology including five years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity in a concern. II. The Departmental Deputy Direct (Processing and Marketing) in the scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6600(Pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.10,000-15,200) with five years regular service in the grade and possessing qualifications at (b)(i) above shall also be considered along with outsiders and in case he she is selected f appointment to the post, the same shall be deemed to have been filled on promotion.

(2.) The applicant, who had the requisite qualification and was holding the charge of Director at the time of issuance of the Notification, submitted his application through proper channel. The 4th respondent, who was working as the Chief Technical Officer, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai also submitted his application and was selected for appointment to the notified post, on the basis of the recommendation of the UPSC. The applicant challenged the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent on the ground that the 4th respondent does not possess the requisite experience of 7 years in Fish Processing or Fish Processing Technology including 5 years Administrative Experience in a Managerial Capacity. It was also contended that the 4th respondent did not possess the desirable qualifications of Ph.D in Fish Processing Technology and Quality Assurance mentioned in AnnexureA2. It was contended that the 4th respondent had acquired Ph.D in Migration and Fate of Selected Contaminants from Anthropogenic Discharges in Coastal Marine Environment, which is totally distinct from Fish Processing. The applicant had relied on Annexure-A8 communication wherein it was specifically stated that the Administrative Experience of the 4th respondent in a Managerial Capacity was his experience in administration in the laboratory, which according to the applicant was not the requisite experience mentioned in the Notification. It was therefore contended that the selection undertaken pursuant to Annexure-A2 was in contravention of Annexure-A1 Recruitment Rules.

(3.) In the reply statement filed by Government of India before the Tribunal, it was stated that two applications were received pursuant to Annexure-A2 notification. The applications were that of the applicant and the 4th respondent, both of whom were found eligible as per the eligibility conditions and that the applications were forwarded to UPSC, which is the selection authority. The UPSC had conducted interview and had selected the 4th respondent as Director.