http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2387 of 2007

PETITIONER: Union Public Service Commission

RESPONDENT: Sukanta Kar & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2387           OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17977 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

The appellant-Union Public Service Commission  (hereinafter referred to as the ’UPSC’) calls in question legality  of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi  High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant- UPSC questioning correctness of the order passed by the  Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi  (in short the ’Tribunal’).  

The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. It  relates to the eligibility of respondent No.1 for the post of  Deputy Advisor (Training) in Central Public Health and  Environmental Organisation of Urban Development Ministry.   

According to the appellant he is ineligible, but the  Tribunal and the High Court have held that he was eligible, on  interpretation of the Ministry of Works and Housing Deputy  Advisory (Training) Recruitment Rules, 1985 (in short the  ’Recruitment Rules’).   

The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:

Respondent No.1 is a Departmental Scientific Officer. He  took the stand that the appellant-UPSC had wrongly declared  him ineligible for being considered for recruitment on  promotion to the post of Deputy Advisor (Training).  Appellant  was of the view that he did not possess the requisite  educational qualification prescribed in column 8 of the  Schedule to the said ’Recruitment Rules’. Respondent No.1, on  the other hand, took the stand that he was eligible.  According  to the appellant, column 11(2) of the Schedule would come  into force only if the Departmental Scientific Officer possesses  the requisite educational qualification i.e. a Degree in Civil  Engineering from a recognized university or other equivalent  qualification in the alternative.  The Tribunal and the High  Court did not consider the effect of columns 7, 8 and 10 which  are required to be read together and provisions of column

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

11(2) of the Recruitment Rules have to be read as an exception  to the provision, and not column 8 of the Schedule.  The stand  of respondent No.1 was that he was holding the Degree of  Master of Science and he could not be expected to hold Degree  in Civil Engineering after rendering five years regular service  as a Scientific Officer. This educational qualification was not  required under the Recruitment Rules and that is why special  provisions have been made in Column 11(2) providing for only  requirement of five years regular service by Departmental  Scientific Officer. It is further submitted that column 12  relating to the post of Deputy Advisor (Training) indicates the  composition of Departmental Promotion Committee (in short  the ’DPC’) for the purpose of considering confirmation i.e. for  confirmation of service of Deputy Advisor (Training).   Therefore, the intention of the Recruitment Rules is clear that  Departmental Scientific Officer is to be promoted to the post  provided he had 5 years of regular service in the grade and  was selected for the post.  Therefore, a Departmental Scientific  officer was not to fulfill the essential educational qualification  of a Degree in Civil Engineering or equivalent as prescribed in  columns 7, 8 and 10.

Respondent No.2-Union of India supported the view  taken by the Tribunal before the High Court.   

The High Court held that on a proper reading of the  provisions and looking at the intention behind making special  provision under Clause 11(2), it was clear that the same was  intended to provide a promotional avenue to the Departmental  Scientific Officer. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order was  confirmed.   

The stands taken before the Tribunal and the High Court  by the parties were reiterated in this appeal.   

In order to appreciate the rival submissions various  columns of the Schedule need to be noted.

In Column 8 of the Recruitment  Rules, it is provided that  the educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will  apply in the case of promotees but not age qualification.   Column 9 deals with the probation period for promotee officers  and direct recruits.  The method of recruitment for the post is  prescribed in Column 10  which reads as follows:

"By promotion/transfer on deputation including  short-term contract failing which by direct  recruitment".

Column 11 reads as follows: "Promotion/Transfer on Deputation (including Short- term contract):  

(1)        Officers under the Central/State  Governments/Public Sector Undertakings/Recognised  Research Institution/Semi-Government Statutory or  Autonomous Organisations:

(a)    (i)  holding analogous posts: or (ii) with 5 years service in posts in the scale of Rs.  1100-1600  or equivalent; and

(b) possessing the educational qualifications and  experience prescribed for direct recruits in Col. 7.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

(2) The departmental Scientific Officer with 5 years’  regular service in the grade will also be considered  and in case he is selected for appointment to the  post, the       same shall be deemed to have been filled  by promotion".

So far as the question as to whether age and educational  qualification prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the  case of promotees is concerned, it has been clearly stipulated  that in the case of age the answer is in the negative, while in  the case of educational qualification it is in the affirmative.

 As noted above, essential qualification required for the  direct recruits, is specifically provided in Clause 7(i)(a) to be  Degree in Civil Engineering of a recognized university or  equivalent. The source of recruitment is to be indicated as  promotion, transfer and deputation. The educational  qualification provided under Clause 7(i)(a) is in no  way  diluted.  Clause 11(2) only indicates the source i.e. Permanent  Scientific Officer. In fact, in the letter of the Government of  India, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation  of October 2001 it speaks of relaxation. Interestingly, in the  evaluation done by the Union of India in respect of all  applicants where the remarks are indicated, the Union had  clearly stated that respondent No.1 was not eligible as he did  not possess the requisite educational qualification. In the  letter dated 21.3.2002 the Union’s stand was changed on the  basis of the representation made by respondent No.1.  The  stand of the Union seems to be varying at different points of  time.  Initially in the application of respondent No.1 it was  noted that he was ineligible.  Its stand was changed before  Tribunal. Rule 12 which speaks of confirmation provides that  only those who have been promoted can be confirmed.  Above  being the position, the Tribunal and the High Court were not  justified in holding that respondent No.1 was eligible.  In view  of the analysis made above, it is clear that he did not possess  the educational qualification.

 The appeal deserves to be allowed, which we direct but  without any orders as to costs.