Full Judgment
ORAL:
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J).
1. Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
“(a) issue an appropriate order or direction directing respondent No.1, the Staff Selection Commission, North Region, New Delhi to conduct the interview of the applicant, for consideration of his appointment as Junior Engineer in the Central Public Works Department, after his successful performance in the interview, under the provisions of the Central Public Works Department (Subordinate Offices) Junior Engineer (Civil and Electrical) Recruitment Rules 2003; and
(b) any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(c) award costs:”
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that an advertisement was published in the Employment News for 22-28 December 2007 by the Staff Selection Commission regarding selection for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil and Electrical) by way of an All India open competitive examination to be held on 27.04.2008.Applicant, who belongs to schedule caste (SC) community, submitted his application for the said post, although he did not possess the requisite qualification, as per the recruitment rules, on the cut off date, in terms of para-5 of the aforesaid notice/advertisement. It is also not in dispute that the applicant also did not possess the requisite qualification as on 27.04.2008, on which date the competitive examination for the aforesaid post was held. However, as per the material placed on record, applicant obtained the essential qualification, as stipulated in the recruitment rules on 17.07.2008.Since the applicant did not fulfill the requisite qualification on the cut off date he was not allowed to appear in the interview held on 09.02.2009 on the ground of non-fulfillment of the essential qualification as on 18.01.2008.It is on the basis of these facts applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. We have heard learned counsel of the applicant at the admission stage. We are of the view that the applicant is not entitled to any relief. The applicant has placed on record the Central Public Works Department (Subordinate Offices) Junior Engineer (Civil and Electrical) Recruitment Rules, 2003 as Annexure A-7.As can be seen from column No.8 of the Schedule attached to the said rules, educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitment are Diploma in Civil or Electrical or Mechanical Engineering from an Institute recognized by the Central Government or equivalent qualification. Admittedly, the applicant obtained a diploma in Civil Engineering from Uttrakhand Board of Technical Education, Roorkee and has placed on record marks sheet dated 16.07.2008 at page-33 of the paper-book. Thus, applicant was eligible for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer only after he has obtained diploma in Civil Engineering after he qualified the said examination and the result was declared on 16.07.2008 and not prior to that date. Thus, in case applicant was not permitted to appear in the interview, as admittedly he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as on 18.01.2008, we see no infirmity in the action of the respondents. As already stated above, applicant did not possess the diploma in Civil Engineering even on 27.04.2008 when competitive examination for the said post was held. Thus, applicant being ineligible for the said post it was not permissible for him to apply for the said post in terms of the recruitment rules, especially when a stipulation has been made in the advertisement itself that the candidates should have obtained the essential qualification as on 18.01.2008.Law on this point is no more resintegra. At this stage, we wish to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jenany J.R. v. S. Rajeevan and others, (2010) 5 SCC 798.That was a case where in terms of Note (2) appended to Rule 43 in Chapter XIV A of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 the relevant date for possessing the prescribed qualification for promotion was that a person must possess the prescribed qualification at the time of occurrence of vacancy. The question, which was under consideration before the Apex Court, was as to which would be the relevant date for possessing the prescribed qualification whether at the time of occurrence of vacancy or at the time the appointment is to be made? The Apex Court while interpreting the aforesaid rule held that crucial date on which the candidate should possess the requisite qualification should be the date of occurrence of vacancy. On fact, it was held that since the vacancy of High School Assistant (Hindi) arose on 01.07.2003, the appellant who possessed the requisite qualification on that date was rightly selected for appointment in response to the advertisement issued on 10.08.2003 and given appointment by order dated 11.09.2003 and joined service on 23.10.2003.The Apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, whereby appointment was given to respondent No.1 before the Apex Court on the ground that she had come to possess the requisite qualification by virtue of re-evaluation wherein he was declared pass on 23.09.2003.The Apex Court held that according to the plain language of relevant rules, educational qualification was to be determined on the cut off date, i.e., 1.7.2003, on that date only the appellant possessed the requisite educational qualification and therefore appointment of respondent No.1 was unassailable.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel of applicant that since the application of the applicant was entertained and he was permitted to appear in the competitive examination and has also qualified the said written examination, as such it was not permissible for the respondents not to permit the applicant to appear in the interview held on 09.02.2009.According to us, the contention raised by the learned counsel of applicant deserves outright rejection in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T. Jayakumar v. A. Gopu and another, (2008) 2 SCC (LandS) 919, whereby the Apex Court has held that a candidate can be excluded for consideration at the interview stage also on account of defect in his application and calling for interview does not operate as an estoppel. That was a case where respondent No.1 was called for interview but his candidature was rejected on the ground that his first application did not bear his signature and second application was received after the closing date and thus both the applications were invalid. Respondent No.1 challenged the selection and appointment of appellant before the Apex Court, by filing OA in the Tribunal. It was submitted on his behalf that he was better qualified than the appellant and the action of the respondent-authority in selecting the appellant in preference to respondent No.1 was quite bad and unreasonable. The Tribunal did not accept the plea taken by the respondent-authority that candidature of the appellant was not acceptable. The matter was carried to the High Court and the High Court finally dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Department. That is how the matter was carried to the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that the decision of the authority concerned in rejecting the application of respondent No.1 was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and there was no valid ground for the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court to interfere in the matter.
5. At this stage, it will be useful to para-12 of the judgment, which thus reads:
“12. We are not aware any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light.”
6. The ratio, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T. Jayakumar (supra), relevant portion of which has been reproduced above, is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The applicant was not possessing the essential qualification for the aforesaid post on the cut off date and he subsequently acquired the essential qualification on 16.07.2008, as such the applicant being ineligible for the said post, his application could not have been entertained at all and acquisition of qualification at a subsequent stage will not make him eligible for the said post.
7. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is found bereft of merit, which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself, with no order as to costs.
8. In view of the dismissal of the OA, no orders are required to be passed on MA-324/2012 for condonation of delay.