NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus KAVINDER AND OTHERS

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

KAVINDER AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2020)

JULY 21, 2020

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDU MALHOTRA AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]

Service Law:

Selection/ Recruitment – Eligibility requirement for the postin question was post-graduate degree or diploma in social work/Labour Welfare/ Industrial Relations/ Personnel Management/ Anyother allied subjects – Respondent-candidate declared ineligiblefor the post – Central Administrative Tribunal held the candidateas eligible for appointment to the post as he fulfilled the eligibilitycriteria since he had studied certain subjects in his MBA degreecourse which had bearing on the eligibility requirement for the post– High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal – Appeal to SupremeCourt – Held: The subjects studied by the candidate during MBAcourse cannot lead to conclusion that he had post-graduate degreeor diploma in the disciplines specifically spelt out in theadvertisement for the post – MBA degree cannot be regarded asallied to post-graduate degree or diploma – The employer wasbest suited to judge whether the degree of the candidate was in anallied subject – Judgment of the Courts below was erroneous.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The eligibility requirements stipulated in theadvertisement are that the candidate must have post-graduatedegree or diploma in (i) Social Work; or (ii) Labour Welfare; or(iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel Management; or (v)in any other allied subject of recognized University/institutionor equivalent. The first respondent in the MBA degreeprogramme, during the course of the second semester, studiedHuman Resource Management as subject. In the fourthsemester, the first respondent had course in Industrial Relationsand Labour Legislation. Studying these two subjects would not

[2020] 6 S.C.R.

Alead to the conclusion that the first respondent holds post-graduate degree or diploma in the disciplines which have beenspecifically spelt out in the advertisement or in any allied subject.The MBA degree cannot be regarded as allied to post-graduatedegree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, IndustrialRelations or Personnel Management. The advertisement did notBspecifically provide how equivalence was to be establishedbetween post-graduate degree/diploma in the subjects specifiedin the advertisement and post-graduate degree/diploma in anallied subject. The appellant as an employer was best suited tojudge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an alliedCsubject. Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to therequirements prescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere.Therefore, the Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding thatthe first respondent was qualified merely because he studied twosubjects as part of his MBA degree programme, namely, HumanResource Management and Industrial Relations and LabourDLegislation. Therefore, the findings which have been arrived atby the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court are erroneous.[Paras 8-10][17-D-H; 18-A-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 232 of2020.EFrom the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2016 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 11274 of 2016.

Ajay Bansal, Praveen Swarup, Amit Singh, Kanishk Singh, Advs.for the Appellant.FKanhaiya Singhal, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Sunita Sharma,B.V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.G1. This appeal arises from judgment and order of the DivisionBench of the High Court of Delhi dated 29 November 2016. The HighCourt has, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution, affirmed judgment and order of the Central AdministrativeTribunal at its Principal Bench at New Delhi, by which the first respondent

was held to be qualified for appointment to the post of Labour WelfareSuperintendent.

2. An advertisement was issued for inviting applications for variousposts in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on competitive basis. Amongthe posts that were advertised was that of Labour WelfareSuperintendent in the Municipal Corporation. The qualifications andexperience required for the post were prescribed as follows:

“Essential Qualifications:

(1) Degree of recognized University or Equivalent.

(2) Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma in Social Work or LabourWelfare or Industrial Relations or Personnel Management orin any other allied subject of recognized University /institutionor equivalent.

Desirable:

(1) Degree in Law of recognized University or equivalent.

(2) Experience in the field in responsible capacity of LabourWelfare/Industrial Relations/Personnel Management and/orin allied fields.”

3. The selection process was conducted by the Delhi SubordinateServices Selection Board by way of written examinations. Even afterthe candidate had appeared for the examinations, the Board or theappellant retained the authority to cancel their candidature during therecruitment process, if she/he failed to meet the said eligibility criteria.The first respondent applied for the post and appeared in the examinationconducted by the Board. He was provisionally short-listed for thePart II examination upon the declaration of the results of the Part Iobjective examination. He was, however, declared not to be eligible forselection.

4. Aggrieved by his non-selection, the first respondent moved theCentral Administrative Tribunal (CAT) contending that he fulfilled theeligibility requirements. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 20May 2016, came to the conclusion that the first respondent fulfilled theconditions of eligibility. The first respondent holds B.Sc. degree fromMaharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and thus, satisfied the firstcondition of eligibility. With regard to the second condition, the Tribunalnoted that the first respondent did not claim to have degree or diploma

Ain Social Work or Labour Welfare, but that as student of the MBAdegree programme of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, he hadstudied certain subjects which had bearing on the eligibility requirements.Accepting the contention of the first respondent, the Tribunal held thathe had studied Human Resource Management and Industrial Relationsin the course of the MBA degree programme. It was on this basis thatBthe first respondent was held to be eligible and having passed thecompetitive examination, direction was issued for his appointment tothe post. This order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the DivisionBench of the High Court of Delhi while rejecting writ petition institutedby the appellant.

5. The issue which falls for determination in the appeal is whetherthe first respondent fulfills the requirements of eligibility. Theadvertisement issued by the appellant specifies that the essentialqualifications would consist of (i) degree of recognized University orequivalent; (ii) post graduate degree/diploma in Social Work, Labour

DWelfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management or in any otherallied subject of recognized University/institution or equivalent.

6. Mr Ajay Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant, submits that merely because the first respondent had studiedthe subjects of Human Resource Management during the course of theEsecond semester and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation duringthe course of the fourth semester of the MBA degree programme, wouldnot lead to the inference that he possessed the essential qualificationsprescribed in the advertisement. It was submitted that in the absence ofthe first respondent holding prescribed qualification, both the Tribunaland the High Court have erred in issuing direction for his appointment.F

7. Opposing these submissions, Mr Kanhaiya Singhal, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, has made an earnesteffort to persuade this Court to hold that the view which has been adoptedby the Tribunal and by the High Court is correct. Learned counselsubmitted that concurrent view has been taken by both the TribunalGand the High Court that the first respondent fulfilled the conditions ofeligibility and this should not be interfered with. Apart from this, learnedcounsel sought to urge that the eligibility requirements which werestipulated in the advertisement contemplate the holding of post graduatedegree/diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations,HPersonnel Management, or in any other allied subject. He urged that the

MBA degree of the first respondent should be construed as one in anallied subject, particularly having regard to the nature of the coursesundertaken as part of the MBA degree programme. In this context, hesought to draw parity between the subjects which are offered in thecourse of the degree in Personnel Management and the subjects whichwere studied by the first respondent.

8. While assessing merits of the rival contentions, we must at theoutset have due regard to the basis which has been adopted by the firstrespondent in support of his contention that he fulfills the eligibilityrequirements. The categoric position of the first respondent is that duringthe course of the MBA degree programme, he had studied the subjectsof Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and LabourLegislation. Having regard to this position, the issue which falls fordetermination is whether this would lead the Court to the conclusion thatthe first respondent fulfills the eligibility requirements. The eligibilityrequirements stipulated in the advertisement are that the candidate musthave post graduate degree or diploma in (i) Social Work; or (ii) LabourWelfare; or (iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel Management; or(v) in any other allied subject of recognized University/institution orequivalent.9. The first respondent completed the MBA degree programmefrom Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The mark sheets whichhave been relied upon by the first respondent indicate that during thecourse of the second semester, he studied Human Resource Managementas subject. In the fourth semester, the first respondent had course inIndustrial Relations and Labour Legislation. Studying these two subjectswould not lead to the conclusion that the first respondent holds postgraduate degree or diploma in the disciplines which have been specificallyspelt out in the advertisement or in any allied subject. The MBA degreecannot be regarded as allied to post graduate degree or diploma inSocial Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or PersonnelManagement. The recruitment was being made to the service of theappellant. The advertisement did not specifically provide how equivalencewas to be established between postgraduate degree/diploma in thesubjects specified in the advertisement and postgraduate degree/diplomain an allied subject. The appellant as an employer was best suited tojudge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an allied subject.Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to the requirements

Aprescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere. We are of the viewthat the Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that the first respondentwas qualified merely because he studied two subjects as part of hisMBA degree programme, namely, Human Resource Management andIndustrial Relations and Labour Legislation. The High Court has simplyaffirmed the view of the Tribunal.

10. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the findingswhich have been arrived at by the Tribunal and affirmed by the HighCourt are erroneous. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside theimpugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 29 November2016. In consequence, OA No 1492 of 2013 filed by the first respondentCbefore the Central Administrative Tribunal shall stand dismissed. However,in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

DKalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.