CH. SATYANARAYAN (DR.) Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications have been filed against the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi on July 25, 2003 refusing to interfere with the procedure adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in short listing candidates for filling up the post of Scientist 'B' in the Zoological Survey of India. It may be indicated that of the several original applications disposed of by the learned Tribunal, only three sets of Petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Tribunal.

(2.) Admittedly, certain essential qualifications were mentioned in the advertisement published in July, 2000 along with certain desirable qualifications. The Petitioners all claim to have the said qualifications and have, accordingly, questioned the additional procedure adopted by the Union Public Service Commission in choosing candidates for filling up the 48 vacancies which had been notified. Admittedly, the Commission in addition to the essential and desirable qualifications also gave preference to candidates, who had acquired a Ph.D. Degree with at least one year's experience after acquiring the Ph.D. Degree as on the normal closing date, i.e. August 10, 2000. It has been contended that since the said criteria was neither a part of the essential nor the desirable qualifications, the Commission acted illegally in adopting such procedure, which eliminated the writ Petitioners herein. Appearing in support of the three applications, Mr. Phatik Chandra Das submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in upholding the method of short listing adopted by the Union Public Service Commission. According to Mr. Phatik Chandra Das, the Respondents were required to consider the case of candidates within the bounds of the qualifications as indicated in the notice inviting applications and the Commission had no authority to exceed the said bounds by adopting a procedure of its own.

(3.) Mr. Phatik Chandra Das submitted that it is a well established proposition of law that a recruting authority cannot travel beyond what has been mentioned in the Employment Notice and since the holding of a Ph.D. Degree and one year's experience after obtaining such degree, was neither an essential nor a desirable qualification, using such a procedure to eliminate the Petitioners from the zone of contention, was wholly illegal and unfair and the learned Tribunal was wrong in upholding the same.