Full Text
•$--33 . - , , 7^-
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 11603/2016 _ : - / :: '
ANIL BANSAL " ' Petitioner
Through Mr. Manish Chauhan, Advocate
, . - versus; - ' • •
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ^ Respondents
Through, >
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
14.12.2016
ORDER
1. We are not inclined'to interfere with the ihipiigned order dated 30.08.2016 whereby the OA No. 4497/2014 filed by the present petitioner - Amit Bansal - challenging the shortlisting criteria has been dismissed.., ~ ' 2. the Union Public Service Commission ('UPSC') had invited applications; for 32 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors in the Directorate of Prosecution, Hom& Department, Government of NCT ofDelhi.i (02 posts for Schedule Castes, 04 posts for Schedule Tribe, ' - 07 posts for Other Backward Classes and 19 posts^ for the unreserved category).... '
3. The advertisement had stipulated the essential qualifications,required, and that in the event that a large number of applications were received, one of the shortlisting criteria as stipulated may be WP(C)No.ll603/2016,. ^Pagelof[5] 2016:DHC:9305-DB:• • - • •• • _ • followed. The relevant portion ofthe advertisement reads:- "Age: 30,yrs., - QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL
A. EDUCATIONAL: A degree in Law of a Recognized
University or equivalent. (Note: Equivalent referred to in A above may be treated as L.L.B.) ' B. EXPERIENCE: Three years' experience at the Bar. DESIRABLE: Experience as Government Advocate. •
3. MINIMUM ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS: All applicants must fulfil essential requirements of the post V- and other conditions stipulated in the advertisement. They are advised to satisfy themselves before applying that they possess at least the essential qualifications laid down for various posts. No enquiry asking for advice as to eligibility will be entertained. NOTE-1: IN THE EVENT OF- NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS BEING LARGE, COMMISSION WILL ADOPT SHORT LISTING CRITERIA TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES TO BE CALLED FOR INTERVIEW TO A REASONABLE ' NUMBER BY ANY OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:; (a) On the basis of Desirable Qualification (DQ) or any one or all of the DQs if more than one DQ is J, prescribed. (b). On the basis of higher educational qualifications, than the minimum prescribedin the advertisement.
(c) On the basis of higher experience in the relevant fields than theminimum prescribed intheadyertisement. (^) By counting experience before or after the • acquisition ofessential qualifications. i (e) Byholding a Recruitment Test." WP(C)No.l1603/2016 Page 2of[5]
3. given below:-, The category -wise, is Si. 'No.' Category No. Of Posts No. ' Of applicants 1 -, ST • V •4 066, \ 2 SC;-'. -2: ' 371 3-..; oBc, ', 7.... N92.. ". 1- 4,.;'GEN, ••.19 681;, •5: PH-B (Blind) -or PB, (Partially Blind) 1*: ': 050, ^ 6 OH - OH (Orthopaedically Handicapped), I* 1' ' •... o o Total 32, 1610. -; 4. In view of the sizable number of applications received,the UPSC fixed tliie following Criteria for shortlisting candidates under various categories for the purpose of limiting the number of candidates to be called for the interview:-
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Category Criteria No. Of No. │ │ No.:.; r fixed - for vacancies candidates' │ │ • 1 ^ shortlisting called │ │ 1 . PH-B (Blind) or EQ (A) + 1 06 │ │ PB (Partially EQ(B) │ │ Blind) │ │ •2 PH-OH .EQ . (A) l,:,. │ │ 07:. . │ │ (Orthopedically raised; to │ │ Handicapped) ELM + ,EQ │ │ (B),: •f ' . │ │ wprr 1 1 /cm /nm r │ │ 2016:DHC:9305-DB │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 3 ST EQ (A) + 4 38 │ │ EQ .(B) │ │ raised to 4 │ │ years and 9 │ │ months │ │ 4 sc EQ (A) 2 54 (including 01 │ │ raised to │ │ PH-OH. │ │ ELM +• EQ │ │ (B) raised (Orthopaedically │ │ to 4 years Handicapped) │ │ and 9 │ │ months │ │ 5 OBC EQ (A) 7 • 81 (Including 03 │ │ raised to │ │ PH-B (Blind) & │ │ ELM + EQ │ │ (B) , raised 02 PH-OH │ │ to 4 years │ │ (Orthopaedically │ │ and 9 │ │ months Handicapped │ │ 6 GENERAL EQ • (A) 19 75 (Including 03 │ │ raised to │ │ PH-B (Blind) & │ │ EEM + EQ │ │ (B) to 4 02 PH-OH │ │ years and 9 │ │ (Orthopaedically │ │ months │ │ Handicapped) │ │ v> │ │ 5. ' The petitioner was not shortlisted as he did not meet the │ │ aforesaid shortlisting criteria. This is an accepted position. The │ │ contention raised is that the UPSC should have held a recruitment │ │ test, rather than prescribe a higher educational qualification as the │ │ shortlisting criteria. We do not agree. The petitioner cannot contend │ │ or allege that a different criteria should have been adopted and could │ │ WP(C) No. 11603/2016 - Page 4 of 5 │ │ 2016:DHC:9305-DB │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had appeared in the interview, pursuant to the interim order passed on 17.12.2014 by the Tribunal, and was selected. This factum was also noticed by the Tribunal inthe impugned order dated 05.03.2015. The petitioner carmot be permitted to argue that as he was selected, the shortlisting criteria should bestruck down. By the interim order dated 17.12.2014, thepetitioner was allowed to appear.before the interview board. The interim order was with a specific stipulation that his result would not be declared till further orders. The interim Order has merged with the final order and is no longer operative and is ineffective. " •
7. In fact, there is a contradiction in the first and the second contention. Thepetitioner has submitted that a recruitment test would have been the most appropriate shortlisting criteria. The selection on merits was by way of interview, which the petitioner does not object. 8.' The writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. •. SANJIV KHANNA, J ^— JAYANT NATH, J DECEMBER 14, 2016/b _