central administrative tribunal principal...

1 OA 1443/18

of 37

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH

O.A.NO.1443 OF 2018

New Delhi, this the day of May, 2018

CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND

HON’BLE MS. PRAVEEN MAHAJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

…………….

1. Saurabh Kumar,

Aged About 28 Years, S/o Gopal Prasad Avasta,

R/o 1-232, Amita Sadan, Bargadwa, Gorakhpur, UP-273007

2. Abhishek Singh

Aged About 27 Years, S/o Ram Singh,

R/o A-1009, H.A.L Township Korwa, Amethi, UP-227412

3. Brijesh Kumar Age about 28 years,

S/o Hemraj Rao, R/o VPO-Kasani, Teh-Chirawa,

District-Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333029

4. Jagpal Singh Age about 33 years,

S/o Biram Pal Singh, R/o Village-Talheri Khurd,

PO-Deoband, Saharanpur, UP-247554

5. Bhoopendra Singh Patel Aged About 27 years, S/o Ram Jiyawan Patel,

R/o Village – PatupurDohari, Post-Bikapur, District-Faizabad, UP 224204

6. Bhargava Thakkellapati

Age about 28 years,

2 OA 1443/18

of 37

S/o T.Venkateshwrlu, R/o D.No. 7-157, Adigoppula,

Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522612

7. Abhishek Age about 30 years,

S/o Indu Kumar Sharma, R/o Village-Bhadwa, Post-Itasang, P.S.-Rahui,

District-Nalanda, Bihar-803119

8. Shilpa Age about 27 years,

D/o Satbir Singh, R/o 180, First floor, Pocket A-3,

Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 9. Abhishek Singh

Aged About 25 Years, S/o Mahendra Singh,

R/o 81/15, Yadav Market, Barra-2 Kanpur, UP-208027

10. Sushant Kumar

Age about 30 years, S/o Hari Prasad Singh,

R/o Village-Nirpur, Post- Bariarpur, Munger, Bihar-811211

11. Kartikey Dutta Age about 22 years,

S/o Sushil Dutta, R/o Shanti Sadan, Kayasthpada,

Dholpur, Rajasthan-328001

12. Atul Kumar Age about 27 years,

S/o HareKrishna Baranwal R/o Village-Kharkuwan, Post-Bhojpur,

P.S.-Devipur Deoghar, Jharkhand

13. Vinay

Age about 28 years, S/o Virendra Singh,

3 OA 1443/18

of 37

R/o H.No. 1087, Sector-I, Rohtak, Haryana-124001

14. Piyush Gyan Jha

Age about 28 years, S/o Suresh Chandra jha,

R/o Road No.3, Sector-5, Magistrate Colony, Patna, Bihar-800025

15. Ashok Kumar Saini

Age about 23 years, S/o HajariLal Saini,

R/o Village-Binderwara, Post-Sikandra, District-Dausa, Rajasthan-303326

16. Abhilash Kumar Patel Age about 27 years,

S/o Ram Pratap Patel, R/o Village+Post-Hirdenagar,

District-Mandla, MP-48166

17. Pankaj Kumar Meena Age about 25 years,

S/o KalyanSahai Meena, R/o C-20, Vasudevnagar,

Dausa, Rajasthan-303303

18. Varma Satyaprakash Munnalal Age about 27 years, S/o Munnalal Verma,

R/o Village-Dighwal, Post-Sarwatkhani, District-Bhadohi, UP-221314

19. Rohit Kumar

Age about 26 yeras, S/o K.N. Prasad,

R/o New Colony, Tilatand, Katrasgarh, Jharkhand-828114

20. Raghib Akhter

Age about 23 years, S/o Sajid Alam,

R/o Village-Sontha, Perwan Toli, Post-Sontha,

4 OA 1443/18

of 37

District-Kisanganj, Bihar-855115

21. Aakash Kumar Age About 26 years,

S/o Sanjay Kumar, r/o House No.66/6, Chota Bajar, Meham,

District-Rohtak, Haryana-124112

22. Mahboob Ali Age about 23 years,

S/o Sharif Ahmad, R/o Village-Said, Nagli,

Amroha, UP-244242

23. Abhijeet Age about 22 years, S/o Rajiv Sharma,

R/o House No.528, Huda Sector-13, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021

24. Ashutosh

Age about 24 years, S/o Raj Narain Yadav,

R/o House No.24-4, Kharaiya, Pokhra, Basaratpur, UP

25. Amit Kumar Mittal

Age about 25 years, S/o Mohan Lal Mittal, R/o House No.33A, Extension 2,

Near PC Kaushik, Ex-MLA gali Nangloi, New Delhi-110041

26. Surendra Pratap Yadav

Age about 29 years, S/o Rajaram Yadav,

R/o Village-Mallupur, Post-Gonauli, Jaunpur, UP-222175

27. Aakib Hussain Dugga

Age about 27 years, S/o Sawlath Hussain Dugga,

R/o SarnalBala, K.P. Road, Anantnag, J&K

5 OA 1443/18

of 37

28. Priyanka Juyal

Age about 23 years, D/o Nagendra Sharma Juyal,

R/o 110. Sector-14, SiddharthNiketan, Kaushambhi, Ghaziabad

29. Amit Kumar

Age about 29 years, S/o Devendra Prasad Singh,

R/o Village-KhoriPakar, Govind, Post-Amnour District-Saran, Bihar-841401

30. Praveen Kumar Sharma

Age about 25 years, S/o Mali Ram Sharma, R/o Plot No.16, Balaji Vihar 21,

Near Devdhara Colony, Murlipura Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan

31. Jaikaran

Age about 29 years, S/o Motilal Thakur,

R/o Village & Post-Banuri, Tehsil-Palampur, District-Kangra, H.P.

32. Rimmy Aggarwal

Age about 25 years, D/o Ram dhari Bansal, R/o 1179, Sector-80,

Mohali, Punjab

33. Abhinav Age about 26 years,

S/o P.C. Jangla, R/o 100 United India apartment,

Mayur Viha, Phase-I Extesnion New Delhi-110091

34. Anurag Yadav

Age about 23 years, S/o Sarvendra Singh,

R/o Village-Mirzapur Sai, Post-Nidhauli Khurd District-Etah, U.P. -207001

6 OA 1443/18

of 37

35. Pawan Kumar

Age about 29 years, S/o Ram Panni Singh,

R/o Mainpura, Danapur Cantt Patna, Bihar-801503

36. Suthirtho Boral

Age about 25 years, S/o Supriyo Boral,

R/o North Shaktigarh, Birati Kolkata, West Bengal-700051

37. Vishal Kumar

Age about 26 years, S/o Arvind Chaudhary, R/o Village-Bhawanipur, Durnia

Bihar-854204

38. Amit Kumar Chandel Age about 29 years

S/o Kalaka Prasad Chandel, R/o Plot No.16, Balaji Vihar 21,

Near Devdhara colony, Murlipura Scheme Jalaun, U.P.

39. Prashant Meena

Age about 27 years, S/o Ram Charan Meena, R/o Jhalawar

Rajasthan

40. Abiram Kumar Age about 31 years,

S/o Ram Swaroop Prasad, R/o New Colony,

Gaya, Bihar

41. Nitesh Kuma Yadav Age about 26 years,

S/o Puneet Yadav, R/o Karmik Nagar Saraidhela,

Dhanbad, Jharkhand

7 OA 1443/18

of 37

42. Vishal Mandaiya Age about 27 years,

S/o Mohan Lal Mandaiya, R/o R2F -772/16, Gali no. 13, Rajnagar,

Part-2, Palam Colony New Delhi.

43. Mahesh Prasad

Age about 25 years, S/o Jagdamba Prasad Dobhal,

R/o H.no.12, Village – Ghengadegaon (Selur), Post – Kandikal,

Tehri, Uttarakhand

44. Deepanshu Sharma Age about 25 years, S/o Prem Prakash Sharma,

R/o B-273, Sector-I, Avantika Rohini, New Delhi-110085

45. Ashutosh Jha

Age about 26 years, S/o Narendra Nath Jha,

R/oo WZ- 745-F, Palam Village New Delhi-110045

46. Nilesh Kumar

Age about 23 years, S/o Umashankar Chourasia, R/o Plot No.1-D, Vikas Nagar, Phase-2

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059

47. Abhishek Kumar Meena Age about 28 years,

S/o Kishor Kumar, R/o 71, Sadar Bazar Cantt,

Faizabad, U.P. -224001

48. Satish Kumar, Age about 26 years,

S/o Chintu ram, R/o Village & Post Kasba, Nonera,

Tehsil – Shahabad, District – Baran, Rajasthan

8 OA 1443/18

of 37

49. Bicky Kumar

Aged about 25 years, S/o Sh. Rinku Kumar,

R/o Village – Jakarpura, Suryagarh, Lakhisarai, Bihar – 811106

50. Gaurav Kumar

Aged about 27 years, S/o Sh. Padam Singh,

R/o P-32/33A, Chanakya Place part-2 New Delhi-110059.

51. Sandeep Kumar Gaurav

Aged about 27 years, S/o Bheekamber Singh R/o 1/450 Ambedkar Colony

Near Big Idol, Naurangabad Chhawani, Aligarh

52. Abhijeet Chaudhary

Aged about 24 years, S/o Satendra Singh

R/o Village : Bahadurpur, PO-Sathla Tehsil-Mawana, Meerut (U.P.)

250402

53. Narendra Kumar Aged about 27 years, S/o Gopal Yadav

R/o Village : Arabaria Naiyadih P.S. Sono, Jamui

Bihar-811314

54. Pankaj Kumar Aged about 27 years,

S/o Rajanand Prasad Singh R/o Village – Luthfalichak

Post- PS. Nalanda, Bihar-803111

55. Ashwini Kumar Prasad

Aged about 28 years S/o Subhash Chandra

9 OA 1443/18

of 37

R/o 748 L Sarvodya Nagar Bichhiya Post-PAC Camp, Gorakhpur, UP -273014

56. Pawanjeet

Aged about 30 years, S/o Lumbraj Singh Chauhan

R/o Ashapura Public School Chandravardai Nagar

Ajmer, Rajasthan 305003

57. Ayush Srivastava Aged about 26 years,

S/o Kuldeep Srivastava R/o 2/L/338 Indra Gandhi Nagar

Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017 58. Naresh KumarBaghel

Aged about 25 years, S/o Murari lal

R/o Nai Ki Sarai, Jalesar Road, Tedi Baghiya Agra -282006

59. Vikash Kumar

Aged about 26 years, S/o Om Prakash Gupta

R/o Prakash bhawan, Dhibra par, Jehanabad Bihar 804408

60. Ankur Garg Aged about 22 years,

S/o Devender Garg R/o 216/6 Gandhi Nagar Rewari,

Haryana 123401

61. Amit Kumar Dixit Aged about 29 years,

S/o Subhash Chanda R/o D/43- A, ST No.5,

West Jyoti Nagar, Delhi-110094

62. Navendu Kumar Aged about 25 years

S/o Santosh Kumar Srivastava R/o Ward no.23, Pandey Tola, Narkatiyaganj

10 OA 1443/18

of 37

West champaran, Bihar 845455

63. Rajat Kaushik Aged about 23 years,

S/o Ajay Kaushik R/o 11/61 Kaushik Bhawan, Street no.8

West Azadnagar, New Delhi 1100051

64. Harshit Goel Aged about 30 years,

S/o Ashok Kumar Agarwal R/o Arihant Nagar, Phase 2, Singhpur

Sarnath Varanasi, U.P. 221007

65. Shailendra kumar Sharma Aged about 27 years, S/o Ram mohansharma

R/o Mela ground, Mahwa, Dausa, Rajasthan -321608

66. Ashish Yadav

Aged about 23 years, S/o Yog Raj Yadav

R/o 1266 FF sector 22-B, Chandigarh -160022

67. Tanveer Hussain Parray

Aged about 25 years, S/o Mohd. Ishaq Parray R/o Gund Hassi Bhat, Srinagar

J&K- 190017

68. Ravikesh Meena Aged about 23 years,

S/o Ramhans Meena, R/o Ganesh Nagar, Agra Road, Dausa

Rajasthan -303303

69. Poonam Bala Aged about 27 years,

D/o Raghubir Singh R/o VPO-Bass Badshapur, Tehsil-Hansi

Hisar, Haryana 125042

11 OA 1443/18

of 37

70. Madhu Sharma Aged about 27 years,

D/o Ramesh Chand Sharma R/o A-62 Varun Vihar, Paldi Meena

Jaipur, Rajasthan

71. Nitesh chandel Aged about 25 years,

S/o Kuldeep Singh R/o Vill – Daboh, PO-Bagwara

Tehsil – Tauni Devi Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh 177021

72. Bharat Kumar Patel

Aged about 27 years, S/o Mool Chand Patel r/o Vill- Kotra, PO-Jetawara, Tehsil-Reodar

Sirohi Rajasthan

73. Mantosh Singh Aged about 28 years,

S/o R.V Singh R/o Ratitalai, Banswara (Rajasthan)

74. Amit Jaiswal

Aged about 26 years S/o O.P. Jaiswal

R/o Mankapur, Gonda (UP) 75. Neha Kapoor,

Aged about 23 years, D/o Rajive Kapoor

R/o 3, Jnanendra Avenue, Uttarpara Hooghly, West Bengal 712258

76. Vishnu yadav

Aged about 27 years, S/o Thakurdeen Yadav

R/o Vill – Modaha, Dakshin, Faizabad, U.P. – 224001

77. Nadeem Danish

Aged about 28 years, S/o Md. Maroof

12 OA 1443/18

of 37

R/o Paharpur, Simri, Bakhtiarpur Saharsa, Bihar

78. Prabhat Kumar

Aged about 30 years, S/o Jai Kishor Tiwari

R/o Shakti Nagar, Thana –Muffasil, Saran, Bihar 841301

79. Varun Gupta

Aged about 28 years, S/o Swami Nath Gupta

R/o 139/1 A Bhulai Ka Pura, Govindpur, Allahabad, U.P. -211004

80. Mamatha Aged about 22 years,

D/o P.Eswara Reddy r/o 20-238-1 B Yaleru, Brahmana

Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh 515002

81. Yogendra Singh Aged about 28 years,

S/o Sri. Mahendra Singh R/o 8/117 1/6, New Lawyers Colony,

Dayalbagh Agra, UP -282005

82. Prashant Sharma Aged about 26 years,

S/o Hari Shankar Sharma R/o 14/228 M P Colony, Bikaner,

Rajasthan 374004

83. Alok Kumar Aged about 27 years,

S/o Ashok Kumar R/o Village – kuwan Devchand, Patti,

Kandharapur, Azamgarh, U.P.

84. Naveen Kumar Kumbhare

Aged about 25 years, S/o Prabhakar Kumbhare

13 OA 1443/18

of 37

R/o Arvi Road, Panchavatinagar Pipri, Wardha, Maharashtra

85. Akshay Kumbhore

Aged about 25 years S/o Meghram Kumbhare

R/o Near Vitthalrukhmini Mandir, Paunibhandara, Maharashtra

86. Shilpa singh

Aged about 29 years, D/o K B Singh

R/o 875 1-2 block, Gaur Grandeur, Sector 119, Noida

87. Umag Dangi Aged about 25 years,

D/o Gyan Swarup Dangi R/o 11, DR M.N. Ghosh Road, Raniganj,

Pin – 713347, District-Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal

88. V. Venkata Pradeep Kumar

Aged about 27 years, S/o Nageswara Rao,

R/o 5-93, Kothagudem Road, Penubali Khammam, Andra Pradesh, Pin 507302

89. Vinod Singh Rawat Aged about 27 years,

S/o Padam Singh R/o 1013/A Sector 52-B Power Colony,

Chandigarh (160036)

90. Adabala N.V.S Raghavendra Rao Aged about 26 years,

S/o Adabal Gangaya R/o 2-34, Padmatipalam, Malkipurummandal

East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 533250

91. Vinay Kumar Rawat,

Aged about 28 years, S/o Lata Mukteshwar Ram Rawat

14 OA 1443/18

of 37

R/o Village-Gausput Post-Bugurgu District Ghazipur UP-233305

92. Gaurav Negi

Aged about 26 years, S/o Sushila Negi

R/o Govt Inter College Joshimat District-Chamoli Uttarakhand

93. Sonawane Vishwajit Nivrutti

Aged about 29 years, S/o Sonawane Nivrutti Damu

R/o 29, KunjVihar, Sahadevnagar Gangapur Road, Nasik

94. Dinesh Kumar Mishra Aged about 25 years,

S/o Narvadeshwar Mishra R/o Tagore Nagar, Ballia UP-277001

95. Abhilash Nakra

Aged about 27 years, D/o Satish Nakra

R/o D-15, DCR UST Murthal Sonipat Haryana-131039

96. Navaneet Kumar

Aged about 25 years, S/o Ranvijay Singh R/o Vill&Post-Lashkarpur Tehsil

Biswan (Sitapur)-261201

97. Digant Mohan Aged about 24 years,

S/o Ashok Kumar R/o Vill & Post-Ursan, Tehsil-Sikandra

Thana-Derapur District-Kanpur Dehat Pin-209301

98. Vipin Rawat

Aged about 26 years, S/o Mohar Singh Rawat

R/o Vill-Vyasbhud (Chakbhud), Post-Kalsi Gate District-Dehradun

15 OA 1443/18

of 37

Uttarakhand-248159

99. Rajendra Triphati Aged about 27 years,

S/o Ramprakash Tripati R/o Bamnia Road, Petlawad

District-Jhabua (MP)-457773

100. Amit Gupta Aged about 24 years,

S/o Kailash Chandra R/o Opp-Power House ORAI (Jalaun)

UP-285001

101. Ashok Kumar Singh (Aged about 28 years), S/o Raj Bansh Singh R/o Vill-Kurusa, PO –Doiyan P.S- Dinara,

Rohtas, Sasaram, Bihar-821112

102. Kunwar Diwakar Singh Aged about 31 years,

S/o Jila Jeet Singh R/o Vill-Sungulpur, PO-Gutwan

Thana-Mariahu, District-Jaunpur UP-222136

103. Alapati Srilakshmi

Aged about 24 years, D/o Satyanarayana R/o D-No-3-11/5, Tulasi Residency

Opp-Balaji Park Town Nizanpet Village-Quthbullapur Rangareddy-500090

104. Vividh Kumar Soni,

Aged about 26 years, S/o Anil Soni

R/o Vishwanath Colony, Railway Station Road, Biaora,

Rajgarh MP

105. Durga Prasad Moharana Aged about 27 years,

S/o Surendra Moharan R/o Bachhara, Jatani, Khorda,

16 OA 1443/18

of 37

Odisha-752050

106. Amol Motinath Veer Aged about 28 years,

S/o Motinath Veer R/o Dastgir Gali Main Road,

Ahmadpur Lathur MH-413551

107. G Shiva Teja Aged about 22 years,

S/o G Rajasekhar Gowd R/o F-202, Vishnu Apartment,

Opp-Birla Gate, Kurnool Andhra Pradesh

108. Naveen Reddy Aged about 25 years, S/o Pearala Vidya Sagar Reddy

R/o 10-74, Rajannagardem, Mothkur, Mandalam, Nalgonda, AP-508277

109. Renu KR

Aged about 26 years, D/o Kesavan Potti.K

R/o Souparnikavellanand, Aruvikkara, Thiruvanthapuram, Kerala-695543

110. Pushpendra Singh Rajawat

Aged about 27 years, S/o Mahendra Singh Rajawat R/o Plot no-9, Tilak Nagar, Dhola Bhata,

Ajmer, Rajasthan-305001

111. Gaurav Patel Aged about 24 years,

S/o Rajendra Singh, R/o Village –Sutta Thana Gursarai,

Jhansi UP-284202

112. N. Anil Kumar Aged about 27 years,

S/o Nellutla Mallesh R/o 6-4-33, Hanuman Colony,

Rampally, Kusara, Mondal Rampalle, Rampalli AP-501301

17 OA 1443/18

of 37

113. Tintu Lal K M

Aged about 26 years, S/o Suseela

R/o Keecheril, Ezhancheril, Vellilappally, Ramapuram Kottayam,

Kerala—686651

114. Chenna Rajanaannar Aged about 24 years,

S/o Chenna Raja Sekhar R/o 12/87 RS Road,

Dharmavaram, Anantapur, AP-8515671

115. Dhiraj Kuamr Aged About 25 years,

S/o Sh. Indradeo Singh, R/o Gram Nawada, Post Urdina,

Thana Barun, Block Barun Nawada, Aurangabad, Bihar-824112

116. Archana K.R.

Aged About 27 years, D/o Sh. Kanaka Das,

R/o Vrindavanam, Chirayankeezhu, Thiruvanantpuram-695304

117. Lalit Mohan Bangari S/o J.S. Bangari,

R/o 23, Near ESTC Kaniya, Kaniya Ramnagar Range, Nainital, Ramnagar,

Uttarakhand, 244715

118. V. Eswararao Patiwada, S/o Sh. Pydiyya

R/o 2-77/2, Shiradi Nagar, Yeleswaran, East Godawari,

Andhra Pradesh-533429.

119. Alok Kumar Gupta, S/o Sh. Uma Shankar Gupta,

R/o 296-J, New Model Colony, BIchhiya, Railway Colony, Gorakhpur-273012

18 OA 1443/18

of 37

120. Abhishek Kumar,

S/o Sh. Ärun Kumar Prasad, R/o North New Shakti Colony,

Vaishali, Bihar-844101 ...Applicants

(All the applicants are aspirant for appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant, Group ‗B‘ in Indian Meteorological Department)

(By Advocate: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj)

Versus

1. Union of India,

Through its Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Prithvi Bhavan,

Opposite India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

2. The Director General of Meteorology

India Meteorological Department, Mausam Bhawan, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi-110003

3. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission

Block No. 12, CGO (Complex), Lodhi Road, New Delhi. ..Respondents

(By Advocates: Mr.H.K.Gangwani with Mr.Vidya Sagar and

Mr.Mayank Kapoor for respondent nos. 1 and 2)

…………

ORDER

Per RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):

This Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985, was filed by the applicants on 9.4.2018 seeking the

following reliefs:

19 OA 1443/18

of 37

―(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Note/Clarification published on website of Respondent No.2 on 28.03.2018

and direct the respondents to treat the candidates/applicants possessing 4 years degree in

engineering in the concerned subject as mentioned in the advertisement/RRs as eligible for appointment to the post

of Scientific Assistant in Indian Meteorological Department on the basis of advertisement (Annexure A-

3).

(ii) To declare the action of respondents in declaring the applicants as ineligible for appointment to the post of

Scientific Assistant as illegal and direct the respondents to consider the claim of applicants for appointment to the

post of Scientific Assistant on the basis of their merit in the competitive examination held by SSC pursuant to Notice of Recruitment of Scientific Assistant in Indian

Meteorological Department Examination, 2017.

(iii) To pass any other orders as this Hon‘ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case including quashing of Notice dated 04.08.2017 (A-2).‖

2. Resisting the O.A., the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed a

counter reply. The applicants have also filed a rejoinder reply refuting the

stand taken by the said respondents.

2.1 Respondent no.3-Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has neither

appeared nor filed any counter reply.

3. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and have

heard Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, and

Mr.H.K.Gangwani with Mr.Vidya Sagar and Mr.Mayank Kapoor, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

20 OA 1443/18

of 37

4. The brief facts of this case, which are relevant for the purpose

of deciding the controversy and are not disputed by either side, are as

follows:

4.1 Respondent no.3-SSC issued/uploaded on its website the notice

dated 18.7.2017 (Annexure A/2) for conducting an open competitive

examination for recruitment to the post of Scientific Assistant in India

Meteorological Department (IMD), Group ‗B‘Non-Gazetted, Non-

Ministerial, in Level 6 of the Pay Matrix (Pay Band 2 (Rs.9300-34800) plus

Grade Pay Rs.4200 in pre-revised scale) from 20.11.2017 to 27.11.2017 in

computer based mode all over the country.

4.2 Paragraph 5 of the notice dated 18.7.2017(ibid) stipulated thus:

―5. MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EDUCATIONAL

QUALIFICATIONS: (As on 04.08.2017)

Bachelor‘s Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the subject)/Computer Science/Information

Technology/Computer Applications or Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering from a recognized Institution/University or equivalent.

NOTE-I The qualifying Degree or diploma referred

above should be in First Class (60% marks) or 6.75 CGPA on a 10 point scale.

NOTE-II The qualifying Degree or diploma referred

above must be of three (3) years duration after (10+2) examination.

NOTE-III The applicant must have passed 10+2

Examination from a Recognized Board or equivalent in Science with Physics and

Mathematics as core subjects.

21 OA 1443/18

of 37

NOTE-IV As per Ministry of Human Resource Development Notification dated 10.06.2015

published in Gazette of India, all the degrees/diplomas/certificates including

technical education degrees/diploma awarded through Open and Distance

Learning mode of education by the Universities established by an Act of

Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be Universities under Section 3

of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and Institutions of National

Importance declared under an Act of Parliament stand automatically recognized

for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government provided they have been approved by the

Distance Education Bureau, University Grants Commission.

NOTE-V Candidates who have not acquired/will not

acquire the educational qualification as on the closing date of receipt of application will

not be eligible and need not apply.

NOTE-VI Ex-Servicemen who have done various courses from Armed Forces which are

certified by competent Authority that they are equivalent to Bachelor‘s Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the

subject)/Computer Science/Information Technology/Computer Applications or

Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering are eligible

to appear in the Examination.‖

4.2.1 The Ministry of Earth Sciences, Scientific Assistant

Recruitment Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ―Recruitment Rules‖)

prescribed the following educational and other qualifications for direct

22 OA 1443/18

of 37

recruitment to the post of Scientific Assistant in India Meteorological

Department:

―Bachelor‘s Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the subject)/ Computer Science/ Information Technology/

Computer Applications or Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering from a recognized

Institution/University or equivalent.

NOTE-I The qualifying Degree or diploma referred above should be in First Class (60% marks)

or 6.75 CGPA on a 10 point scale.

NOTE-II The qualifying Degree or Diploma referred above must be of three (3) years duration after (10+2) examination.

NOTE-III The applicant must have passed 10+2

Examination from a Recognized Board or equivalent in Science with Physics and

Mathematics as core subjects.‖

4.3 The respondent-SSC, by another notice dated 4.8.2017, issued

certain other instructions regarding the said Recruitment of Scientific

Assistant in India Meteorological Department Examination,2017 as per the

notice dated 18.7.2017(ibid), and reiterated that the qualifying Degree or

Diploma in the listed disciplines must be of three years duration after 10+2

Examination.

4.4 Except applicant nos.7 and 35, all other applicants possessed 4-

year B.Tech Degree in Electronics & Communication Engineering/

Computer Science Engineering/Information Technology/ Electronics

Engineering. Applicant nos. 7 and 35 possessed 4-year B.Sc. Engineering in

23 OA 1443/18

of 37

the relevant disciplines. They responded to the notice dated 18.7.2017(ibid)

and applied for appearing at the competitive examination. On the basis of

Admit Cards, the applicants appeared at the online examination conducted

by the respondent-SSC during 22nd

to 25th

November 2017. The respondent-

SSC declared the marks obtained by the candidates in the recruitment

examination and handed over category-wise Merit Lists to the respondent-

Department in terms of Paragraph 11(I) read with Paragraph 18(ii) of the

notice dated 18.7.2017 (ibid). While so, the respondent-Department issued

and uploaded on its website the impugned clarification dated 28.3.2018

which reads thus:

―Regarding appointment of candidates for the post of

Scientific Assistant in India Meteorological Department, it is clarified that the candidates having qualifying degree in the

listed disciplines must be of 3 years duration after 10+2 examination. In this regard, Staff Selection had issued

clarification vide Notice No.3-1/2017-P&P-1 dated 4th

August, 2017.

In view of the above, it is further clarified that four year degree holders are not eligible for the post of Scientific Assistant in the India Meteorological Department.‖

4.5 Being aggrieved by the above clarification, some of the

applicants made representations and sent emails and legal notices requesting

the respondents to rescind the impugned clarification dated 28.3.2018 and to

consider their candidatures as they possess qualification higher than that is

required under the Recruitment Rules and the employment notice dated

18.7.2017/notice dated 4.8.2017(ibid). The applicants also claimed that in

the absence of any provision in the Recruitment Rules or in the employment

24 OA 1443/18

of 37

notice dated 18.7.2017 as well as in the notice dated 4.8.2017 issued by the

respondent-SSC that ―four year degree holders are not eligible for the post of

Scientific Assistant in the India Meteorological Department‖, the impugned

clarification dated 28.3.2018 amounts to changing the terms and conditions

of the employment notice dated 18.7.1987/notice dated 4.8.2017, after the

recruitment examination is over and Merit Lists are prepared and forwarded

by the respondent-SSC and, therefore, the impugned clarification is bad,

illegal and liable to be withdrawn by the respondent-Department. It was also

claimed by the applicants that having possessed 4-year B.Tech Degree in

Electronics & Communication Engineer/Computer Science Engineering

/Information Technology/Electronics Engineering, and 4-year

B.Sc.Engineering in the relevant disciplines, they can by no stretch of

imagination be said to be ineligible for selection and appointment to the post

Scientific Assistant, for which qualification of 3-year Diploma in Electronics

& Communication Engineer/Computer Science Engineering /Information

Technology/Electronics Engineering, or 3-year Bachelor‘s Degree in

Science (with Physics as one of the subject) after 10+2 has been prescribed

in the Recruitment Rules/employment notice dated 18.7.2017 and notice

dated 4.8.2017 (ibid).

4.6 The respondents having failed to consider and take any decision

on the applicants‘ representations, emails and legal notice, the applicants

have filed the present O.A.

25 OA 1443/18

of 37

5. In the above context, it has been contended by

Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, that the

respondent-Department has acted illegally and arbitrarily in clarifying that

―four year degree holders are not eligible for the post of Scientific

Assistant‖. By issuing the impugned clarification dated 28.3.2018, the

respondent-Department has changed the rules of recruitment process, after

the competitive examination was over and the merit lists were prepared and

forwarded by the respondent-SSC, which is impermissible in law. Neither

the Recruitment Rules nor the employment notice dated 18.7.2017/notice

dated 4.8.2017 (ibid) stipulated that ―four year degree holders are not

eligible for the post of Scientific Assistant‖, and, therefore, the impugned

clarification is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has also been contended

by Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj that in the year 2011 the respondent-Department had

initiated the process of recruitment to the post of Scientific Assistant and, on

the basis of selection and recommendation made by the respondent-SSC,

appointed a number of candidates having 4-year B.Tech in Computer

Science/Information Technology/Computer Applications/Electronics and

Telecommunication Engineering. This clearly goes to show that the

respondent-Department has acted illegally and arbitrarily in taking a view

that 4-year degree holders are ineligible for selection and appointment to the

post of Scientific Assistant during the recruitment process initiated vide

26 OA 1443/18

of 37

employment notice dated 18.7.2017. In support of his contentions,

Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj has relied on the following decisions:

(i) State of Haryana vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan, (2006) 11

SCC 153, where the post in question was of Unani Dispenser. The

qualification prescribed was:

(i) Unani Dispenser from any recognized

Unversity/Institution or Board or Faculty of Indian

System of Medicine established by law in India or

Upvaidya of any recognized University/Institution

or Board or Faculty of Indian System of Medicine

established by law in India having the knowledge

of Urdue;

(ii) Matric or its equivalent.

(iii) Knowledge of Hindi and English up to Matric

standard.

The respondent-candidates possessed the qualification of Bachelor of

Unani Medicine and Surgery from Kanpur University apart from

Matric with Hindi and 10+2 with Science. The Hon‘ble Spreme Court

held that the Haryana Ayurvedic/Homeopathic and Unani Technical

Group ( C ) Service Rules, 1977 do not exclude the degree in Unani

Medicines and Surgery for the post of Unani Dispenser, and that the

respondent-candidates possessed the requisite qualifications from

recognized University/Institution or Board and were eligible for

appointment on the post of Unani Dispenser.

27 OA 1443/18

of 37

(ii) Jyoti K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service

Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596, wherein the appellants were

holders of B. Tech. degree in electrical engineering or bachelor's

degree in electrical engineering. On the basis that the appellants did

not possess the necessary qualifications, the Commission held that

they were not eligible for selection. In the writ petitions, the same

having been challenged, it was contended that they possessed higher

qualifications and, therefore, non-consideration of their cases was

incorrect. They sought for a direction to the Commission to consider

them as eligible candidates. It was also pointed out that ever since the

inception of the Board, persons possessing higher qualifications have

been considered and appointed in terms of Rule 13(1) of the Kerala

State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956 and the Board having

accepted higher qualifications to be applicable in all such cases could

not have excluded them in the present cases. The Hon‘ble High Court

dismissed the writ petitions. Allowing the Civil Appeals, the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court has held that if a person had acquired higher

qualifications, such qualifications would presuppose acquisition of the

lower qualification. A degree holder would be eligible to apply for a

post, where the minimum qualification prescribed was diploma. When

the position was not clear and the rules did not per se disqualify

holders of the higher qualifications, it would be appropriate to hold

28 OA 1443/18

of 37

that those with the higher qualifications would be eligible. Paragraphs

7,8 and 9 of the judgment reads thus:

―7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the

same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also

justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification

prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which

presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a

person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post.

In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. 8. Under the relevant rules, for the post of Assistant

Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognized or equivalent

thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be

obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the

lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering

presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.

9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineers

but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess

higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for such

post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in

the same faculty, it becomes clear that the rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that

view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question

whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory rules have been published and

29 OA 1443/18

of 37

those rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such rules

or make himself aware of the rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in

holding that recruitment of appellants would amount to fraud on the public.‖

(iii) Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir

& others, CWP NO.13368/2015, decided on 6.11.2015, the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court has held that while the minimum qualification

prescribed for the post of J&K Forest Service Range Officers Grade I

(Forest) was a B.Sc. (Forestry or an equivalent degree from any

University recognized by the ICAR, a candidate with a higher

qualification was equally eligible. Thus, a B.Sc. candidate with

Forestry as a major subject and M.Sc. in Forestry was eligible. It was

observed:

―25. In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also done

Masters in the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc. (Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to

possess the required qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring higher qualification in the prescribed

subject, i.e., Forestry was sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the prescribed qualification. It

was coupled with the fact that Forestry was one of the appellant‘s major subjects in graduation, due to which he

was able to do his Masters in Forestry.‖

(iv) Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & others, CWP

No.451/2008, a Full Bench of the Hon‘ble High Court of

Punjab & Haryana has held that a candidate possessing a higher

30 OA 1443/18

of 37

degree in the same line cannot be denied consideration for

selection, though he does not hold the lower qualification.

6. Per contra, Mr.H.K.Gangwani, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents, has contended that the qualifications prescribed in the

Recruitment Rules as well as in the employment notice cannot be in any

manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The

applicants not having admittedly possessed the qualification of 3-year

Bachelor‘s Degree in Science (with Physics as one of the subject)/Computer

Science/Information Technology/Computer Applications or 3-year Diploma

in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering from a recognized

Institution/University or equivalent, as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules

and in the employment notice, are ineligible to be considered for selection

and recruitment to the post of Scientific Assistant. It has also been contended

by Mr.H.K.Gangwani that in 2011 recruitment process, the respondent-

Department had recruited 311 Scientific Assistants. In view of duties and

responsibilities attached to the post of Scientific Assistant, four months

integrated training was imparted to those appointees. This training was given

to these appointees on full salary basis along with other admissible

allowances. Out of 311 Scientific Assistants recruited in 2011, 80 Scientific

Assistants having four year B.Tech degree have resigned from the

respondent-Department. Apart from huge financial loss caused to the

Government of India in the form of expenses incurred for imparting training,

31 OA 1443/18

of 37

a manpower shortage also aroused due to such resignation of Scientific

Assistants holding 4-year B.Tech degree. Considering this aspect of the

matter, and in view of clear stipulation in the Recruitment Rules and in the

employment notice with regard to qualification required for the post of

Scientific Assistant, the respondent-Department has issued the clarification

dated 28.3.2018 that ―four year degree holders are not eligible for the post of

Scientific Assistant‖, and the recruitment of any persons having 4-year

B.Tech in Computer Science/Information Technology/Computer

Applications/Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering in the year

2011 would not clothe the applicants with any right, much less an

enforceable right, to claim that they are eligible for selection and

appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant and to assail the clarification

dated 28.3.2018. In support of his contentions, Mr.H.K.Gangwani has relied

on the following decisions:

(1) Dr.M.S.Mudhol and another vs. S.D.Halegkar

and others, (1993) 3 SCC 591, wherein the statutory

recruitment rules prescribed the essential qualifications of (i)

Master‘s degree with at least 2nd

Division from a recognized

university or equivalent; (ii) a degree in teaching from

recognized university or equivalent; and (iii) experience of 10

years‘ teaching as a Vice Principal/P.G.T. in a Higher

Secondary School or Inter-College. The recruitment rules also

32 OA 1443/18

of 37

stipulated that the condition with regard to the 2nd

Division was

relaxable in the case of candidates belonging to the same school

and also in the case of SC and ST candidates. The desirable

qualifications were: (i) experience in administrative charge of a

recognized Higher Secondary School/Inter-College; (ii)

Doctorate Degree; and (iii) M.Ed. degree from a recognized

university. The 1st respondent possessed M.A. degree in

Political Science with 3rd

class with 41.1% aggregate marks and

M.Ed. in second class. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that

the contention of the respondents that M.A with 2nd

Division

was equivalent to M.Ed. with second Division was fallacious.

The former was the academic qualification while the latter a

professional qualification. The statutory rule with regard to the

essential qualifications was very clear inasmuch as it required

both academic Masters‘ degree and the teaching degree; the

latter being not the substitute for the former. What is further,

while laying down the qualifications with regard to the

academic degree, viz., the Masters‘ degree, the rule insists upon

2nd

Division for such degree. It does not insist upon a second

division degree in teaching. A pass degree in teaching is

sufficient in its eyes. It would, therefore, amount to distorting

the requisite qualifications under the rules, to attempt to

33 OA 1443/18

of 37

substitute the teaching qualification for the academic

qualification and exchanging the divisions of the two. It was,

thus, concluded by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that the 1st

respondent did not have the requisite educational qualifications

to be selected for the post of Principal.

(2) Ashish Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

others, (2018) 3 SCC 55, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court

has held that any part of the advertisement which is contrary to

the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription,

and that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the

statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence.

(3) Union of India and another vs. Internal Trading

Co. and another, (2003) 5 SCC 437, wherein the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, has held that a party cannot claim that since something

wrong has been done in another case, direction should be given

for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right,

but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there

is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment

on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed

into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment

presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not

34 OA 1443/18

of 37

countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs

on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has

been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept

of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their

case. They have to establish strength of their cases on some

other basis and not by claiming negative equality.

(4) Vishal Properties (P)Ltd. vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and others, (2007) 11 SCC 172, wherein the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court has held that the authorities might have acted in

an irregular manner in case of some others, but that does not

confer any legal right on the appellant to claim a similar benefit.

7. After having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival

contentions, we have found considerable merit in the contentions of the

applicants.

8. The Recruitment Rules and the employment notice dated

18.7.2017/notice dated 4.8.2017 issued by the respondent-SSC stipulated

the minimum essential educational qualification of Bachelor‘s Degree in

Science (with Physics as one of the subject)/Computer Science/Information

Technology/Computer Applications or Diploma in Electronics and

Telecommunication Engineering from a recognized Institution/University or

equivalent. It was also stipulated that the qualifying degree or diploma

should be in first class (60% marks) or 6.75 CGPA on a 10 point scale and

35 OA 1443/18

of 37

must be of 3 (three) years duration after 10+2 examination, and that the

candidate must have passed 10+2 examination from a recognized Board or

equivalent in Science with Physics and Mathematics as core subjects. It is

not in dispute that the applicants possessed the qualification of 4-year

B.Tech degree in Electronics & Communication Engineer/Computer Science

Engineering /Information Technology/Electronics Engineering and 4-year

B.Sc.Engineering in the relevant disciplines, with first class (60% marks) or

6.75 CGPA on a 10 point scale and passed 10+2 examination from a

recognized Board or equivalent in Science with Physics and Mathematics as

core subjects. Thus, the question that arises for our consideration is as to

whether the applicants or any other candidates possessing 4-year B.Tech

degree/4-year B.Sc. Engineering in the relevant disciplines are ineligible for

selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant in IMD. Similar

question came up for consideration of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Jyoti

K.K. and others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra), wherein

Their Lordships have held that if a person has acquired higher qualification

in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose

the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for any post. Similar

view has also been taken by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in State of

Haryana vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan (supra) and in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs.

State of Jammu & Kashmir & others (supra) and by a Full Bench of the

Hon‘ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Manjit Sigh vs. State of

36 OA 1443/18

of 37

Punjab & others (supra). Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that

the 4-year B.Tech/B.Sc. Engineering degree in the relevant disciplines

possessed by the applicants is higher than the 3-year Bachelor‘s Degree in

Computer Science/Information Technology/Computer Applications and 3-

year Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, and that

the applicants are eligible for selection and appointment to the post of

Scientific Assistant. Furthermore, the Recruitment Rules neither specifically

exclude the 4-year B.Tech/B.Sc. Engineering degree in the relevant

disciplines as the minimum essential educational qualification for the post of

Scientific Assistant, nor do the same stipulate that holders of 4-year

B.Tech/B.Sc.Engineering degree in the relevant disciplines are ineligible for

selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant. The

employment notice dated 18.7.2017/notice dated 4.8.2017 issued by the

respondent-SSC also did not specifically stipulate that 4-year

B.Tech/B.Sc.Engineering degree holders, like the applicants, would be

ineligible for selection and appointment to the post of Scientific Assistant.

Thus, the respondent-Department cannot be held to be justified in issuing the

impugned clarification dated 28.3.2018 that ‗four year degree holders are not

eligible for the post of Scientific Assistant‘ , more so when the respondent-

SSC had admittedly conducted the recruitment examination and declared the

result of thereof, and had submitted the Merit Lists to the respondent-

Department by 28.3.2018.

37 OA 1443/18

of 37

9. The decisions relied on by Mr.H.K.Gangwani, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents, besides being out of context, do not go to

support the stand taken by the respondents.

10. In the light of our above discussions, we have no hesitation in

holding that the impugned clarification dated 28.3.2018 (Annexure A/1)

issued by the respondent-Department is unsustainable in the eyes of law and

liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the same and direct the

respondent-Department to consider the candidatures of the applicants and

other similarly placed candidates for selection and recruitment to the post of

Scientific Assistant on the basis of their merit positions in the competitive

examination held by the respondent-SSC pursuant to the Notice of

Recruitment of Scientific Assistant in India Meteorological Department

Examination, 2017.

11. Resultantly, the O.A. is allowed. No costs.

(PRAVEEN MAHAJAN) (RAJ VIR SHARMA) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

AN

central administrative tribunal principal...

Documents