Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Rama Sharma & Ors.
Email(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8380 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8380 of 2001)
Appointment – Eligibility – Cut-off date for minimum stipulated qualification – Municipal Corporation of Delhi inviting applica-tions for the posts of junior specialist doctors to be adjudged by the UPSC – Candidates applying for the posts is required to possess the minimum stipulated qualification and experience by the last date specified for receipt of applications – Respondent applicant not possessing such minimum qualification on the last date for receipt of the application but by the time the UPSC considered the applications, the respondent came to possess such minimum qualification – UPSC, however rejecting respondent’s candidature since she did not possess the requisite qualification as on the last date for receipt of applications – On writ, High Court directing the consideration of respondent’s application for the post – Whether High Court justified in giving such direction. Held, since the respondent did not have the requisite qualifica-tion as on the last date for receipt of the applications, the UPSC was justified in not considering the application of the respond-ent and therefore, High Court erred in directing the consideration of the respondent’s candidature for the post.
The position is undoubtedly clear that it would be open for an employer to issue an advertisement to fill up a post which might be lying vacant on the date of the advertisement or which is likely to fall vacant in anticipation of which an advertisement can always be issued. Having regard to the proforma sent to the UPSC which has been annexed as annexure – P4 of the paper-book, we also do not find any substance on facts that the corporation committed any error in issuing the advertisement and sending the requisition to the UPSC to adjudge suitability of the persons applied for the posts in question. Mr. Raval, no doubt, placed reliance on the recommendation of the municipal corporation in case of the respondent subsequent to the last date of the submis-sion of the application, but that recommendation itself will not confer a right on the respondent to be considered if in terms of the advertisement she had not acquired the prescribed qualifica-tion by the last date of the application. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and allow this appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. (Para 6)
2. State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (JT 1997 (7) SC 287) (Para 4)
3. Prem Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. (JT 1996 (5) SC 219) (Para 4)
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed against the judgment of High Court of Delhi. The question for consideration before the High Court was, whether the Union Public Service Commission (for short “UPSC”) was justified in not considering the case of the respondent for the post of junior specialist (Gyne.) on the ground that she had not acquired the minimum qualification by the last date stipulated for submission of the application form. An advertisement had been issued on 2.9.1986 inviting applications for filling up the posts of junior specialist in several disciplines and the prescribed qualifica-tion for being considered for the said posts was that the requi-site postgraduate qualification should have been acquired two years back in case of degree-holders and four years back in case of diploma holders. Paragraph 4 of the advertisement unequivo-cally indicated that the application in the prescribed proforma accompanied by the attested copies of the degree/diploma in the speciality concerned should reach by 6.10.1986. The respondent had obtained her diploma on 24.03.1983. Therefore, in her case, the four years period would complete on 24.3.1987, on which date she would be eligible for being considered in terms of the adver-tisement. The UPSC did not consider her case on the ground that she had not acquired requisite qualification by the date which was indicated to be the last date for submission of the applica-tion. In the case in hand that date being 06.10.1986, there is no doubt with regard to these facts. The respondent, however, ap-proached the High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition, inter alia, contending that since the UPSC made the consideration on 10th of June, 1987 and the respondent had acquired the prescribed qualification by that date, the UPSC committed error in not considering her case for the post advertised. The High Court was persuaded to accept this contention and by the impugned judgment, the High Court having directed to consider her case for one of the posts advertised, the corporation is in appeal.
3. It appears from the impugned judgment of the High Court that the court relied on a decision of this Court in the case of UCO Bank v. Madhav Anant Koparkar ((1999) SCC (L&S) 1174). But having considered the said judgment, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the principles enunciated therein will have no application to the case in hand.
4. The learned Attorney General appearing for the appellant, contends that the advertisement itself unequivocally having indicated the last date for submission of the application to be 06.10.1986, and prescribed qualification has to be acquired by that date and it was, therefore, not open for the High Court to take into consideration any sympathy nor was the High Court justified in coming to a conclusion that the UPSC committed error by adopting a rigid criteria while not considering the case of the respondent. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajas-than v. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (JT 1997 (7) SC 287). Mr. Raval, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, vehemently contended that the advertisement itself could not have been issued inasmuch as there was no vacancy on the date the advertisement was issued. That being the position, the respondent having acquired the prescribed qualification much before the posts fell vacant, the High Court was fully justified in direct-ing consideration of her case in respect of the post that was advertised. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Prem Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Electricity Board & Ors. (JT 1996 (5) SC 219).
5. Having examined the aforesaid case, we are of the considered opinion that in that case, the question for consideration was when a particular number of posts are advertised, would it be open for the selecting authority and the appointing authority to recruit more than the posts advertised? The question that arises for consideration in the present case is something differ-ent than the ratio of the aforesaid case on which the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance.
6. The position is undoubtedly clear that it would be open for an employer to issue an advertisement to fill up a post which might be lying vacant on the date of the advertisement or which is likely to fall vacant in anticipation of which an advertisement can always be issued. Having regard to the proforma sent to the UPSC which has been annexed as annexure-P4 of the paper-book, we also do not find any substance on facts that the corporation committed any error in issuing the advertisement and sending the requisition to the UPSC to adjudge suitability of the persons applied for the posts in question. Mr. Raval, no doubt, placed reliance on the recommendation of the municipal corporation in case of the respondent subsequent to the last date of the submis-sion of the application, but that recommendation itself will not confer a right on the respondent to be considered if in terms of the advertisement she had not acquired the prescribed qualifica-tion by the last date of the application. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and allow this appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
