Union Public Service Commission v. Captain Solanki @ Ashwin Bhawar Lal Sikanki & Anr

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J JANUARY 31, 2012 'sn'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on 31.01.2012 + W.P.(C) 473/2011 UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION … Petitioner versus CAPTAIN SOLANKI @ ASHWIN BHAWAR LAL SOLANKI & ANR. … Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Naresh Kaushik For Respondent No.2 : Mr S.Wasim A.Qadri CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL) W.P.(C) 473/2011 & CM 972/2011(stay) 1. This writ petition filed on behalf of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is directed against the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No.263/2010 which had been preferred by the respondent No.1 inasmuch as he had not been called for the interview pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.01.2009 issued by the UPSC for calling applications for eight posts of Nautical Officers under the control of Department of Shipping. 2. There were two points on which the application of the respondent No.1 had been rejected and because of which he was not called for the interview which was held on 07.10.2009. The first point was that, according to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 had not submitted the requisite matriculation certificate which was a necessary condition for being considered for the said post. We need not labour on this aspect of the matter because the learned counsel for the respondents had produced the College Leaving Certificate which was of Bombay and which was equivalent to class XII. The learned counsel for the petitioner, as pointed out in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, had fairly considered this point. We are, therefore, left to consider the second point which is with regard to the essential qualifications possessed by the respondent No.1. 3. One of the essential qualifications stipulated in the advertisement dated 24.01.2009 was that the candidate should have eight years service as a Deck Officer of which one year must have been in the capacity of a Chief Officer on a foreign going ship. The application form which was provided for the purposes of appointment required certain particulars to be filled in apart from the name of the candidate, date of birth etc. Serial Nos.10A & B of the application form are relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition. Serial No.10 reads as under:- "10(A). Do you possess relevant experience for the Post?(Write "1" for Yes, "2" for No(See Instructions-II) 1 (B) If Yes, indicate the length of experience as on closing date: 2 YEARS." 4. The said application form also contained the general instructions for filling the application form. Instruction No.3 is relevant for our purposes and the same reads as under:- "3) Copies of certificates should be attached in support of the information given in the form where necessary. Any information contained in the attached certificates shall not be considered unless it is claimed in the application form." (underlining added) 5. The respondent No.1, as indicated above, had answered "Yes" to the question as to whether he possessed relevant experience for the post, however, in answer to serial No.10(B), he indicated the length of experience as on the closing date, i.e. 12.02.2009, to be of two years. If one were to go by this alone, it is evident that the respondent No.1 on his own showing did not possess the minimum qualifying experience of eight years as stipulated in the advertisement dated 24.01.2009. It was the case of the respondents that the petitioner ought to have examined the accompanying documents to ascertain as to whether he did or did not have the requisite experience. It was further submitted that in case the petitioner examined those documents, it would be evident that he did, in fact, possess more than eight years experience as was required. Agreeing with the respondents, the Tribunal held that it was for the petitioner to have examined the accompanying documents to ascertain as to whether t