- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Public Service Commission v. Dheerender Singh Paliwal .
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) published an advertisement in Employment News (28th Feb. - 6th March 2009) inviting applications for 37 categories of posts. Serial No. 29 of the advertisement invited applications to fill nine posts of Senior Scientific Officers (Biology) at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Home Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. The advertisement prescribed essential educational qualifications: (A) a Master's Degree in one of ten listed disciplines and (B) that Zoology, Botany or Forensic Science must have been one of the subjects at the B.Sc. level. It also required the submission of attested/self-certified copies of degree certificates (both Master's and B.Sc) with the application and stated that failure to attach required certificates could lead to rejection of the application.
The respondent (an applicant) submitted an application and furnished an attested photocopy of his Master's degree but did not submit a copy of his B.Sc degree showing that he had Zoology, Botany or Forensic Science at the B.Sc level. The respondent was not called for interview; upon inquiry he was informed his application was rejected for failure to provide proof that his graduation included the specified subjects. The respondent then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and obtained an order dated 9.12.2009 in his favour. UPSC challenged that CAT order by filing the present writ petition. The High Court disposed of the petition in favour of UPSC, setting aside the Tribunal's order and dismissing OA No. 2492/2009 filed by the respondent; no costs were awarded.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an application that does not include attested/self‑certified copies of the B.Sc certificate (showing Zoology, Botany or Forensic Science) is liable to be rejected where the advertisement explicitly required such documentary proof as part of minimum essential qualifications.
- Whether the Tribunal could infer, from the production of an attested photocopy of a Master's degree alone, that the applicant necessarily had the required subject at the B.Sc level (i.e., whether a higher qualification presumptively supplies proof of the lower qualification).
- Whether UPSC's strict adherence to the procedural requirement of submission of specified certificates is permissible in view of practical difficulties and the volume of applications it handles.
- Whether the respondent was entitled to relief on the ground of discrimination because other applicants without graduation certificates were called for interview.
Arguments of the Parties
UPSC's Arguments (as recorded)
- The letter of the advertisement required attachment of attested/self-certified copies of the prescribed minimum qualifications and related certificates; candidates must strictly comply with the advertisement.
- UPSC conducts a very large number of examinations with very large numbers of applicants; it is not feasible for UPSC to conduct inquisitorial or deductive enquiries to establish qualification details beyond what the advertisement requires.
- It is possible in practice to switch disciplines between graduation and post-graduation; therefore, possession of a Master's degree does not necessarily establish that the candidate studied the required subject at the B.Sc level.
- Any negligence on the part of the candidate in failing to submit the required documents should result in the candidate suffering the consequences (i.e., rejection of an incomplete application).
- As to the discrimination plea, UPSC explained the administrative processing: applications were processed discipline-wise by different Under Secretaries and one Under Secretary wrongly accepted applications of two persons in a different discipline; such administrative error does not entitle the respondent to relief.
Respondent's Arguments (as recorded)
- The respondent produced an attested photocopy of a Master's degree in Zoology and the Tribunal inferred that the Master's degree presupposed that the respondent had Zoology as a subject at the B.Sc level, because a Master's degree in the same faculty typically presupposes acquisition of the lower qualification.
- The respondent raised a plea of discrimination, asserting that two other applicants who likewise had not furnished their graduation degrees were nonetheless called for interview.
- The respondent's counsel cited the decision in Jyothi KK v. Kerala PSC (CA No. 2199-2200/2002) to support the proposition that a higher qualification in the same faculty can presuppose the acquisition of the lower prescribed qualification.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Division Bench judgment dated 25.1.2010 in WP(C) No. 10058/2009 and connected writ petitions | Principle that the letter of the advertisement must be complied with; UPSC cannot be expected to accept procedurally incomplete applications because doing so would create practical difficulties and potentially lead to systemic breakdown. | The Court expressly concurred with this Division Bench decision and relied on its reasoning to hold that strict compliance with the advertisement's procedural requirements was necessary; this supported allowing the writ petition in favour of UPSC. |
| Jyothi KK v. Kerala PSC, CA No. 2199-2200/2002 (decision dated 13.3.2002) | The decision holds that if a person has acquired a higher qualification in the same faculty (discipline) such higher qualification can be said to presuppose acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed. The court cited the relevant rule context: Rule 10(a)(ii) which permitted recognition of higher qualifications that presuppose the lower qualification. | The Court noted this authority as relied upon by the respondent but recorded that the decision arose in the context of a statutory Rule (Rule 10(a)(ii)) and therefore was not treated as determinative for the present facts. The Court did not accept the respondent's reliance on this decision to overturn the rejection of his application. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by first reciting the advertisement's terms and emphasising the twin educational requirements for the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Biology): (1) a Master's Degree in one of ten specified disciplines and (2) that Zoology, Botany or Forensic Science must have been one of the subjects at the B.Sc level. The advertisement repeatedly and clearly instructed candidates to attach attested/self-certified copies of the relevant certificates proving those minimum qualifications.
The Court analysed the documentary requirements in the advertisement: Note-I (minimum qualifications are minimum and mere possession does not guarantee being called for interview); Note-II (Commission may restrict candidates by higher qualifications or experience or screening tests) including the explicit instruction that attested/self-certified copies of certificates must be attached; Instruction No. 7 which listed specific certificates to be attached; and Note-III which warned that an application without the required certificates was liable to be rejected and that no appeal against rejection would be entertained.
Against this background, the Court observed that the respondent did not attach the B.Sc degree certificate and thus failed to comply with the repeated and explicit documentary requirements. The CAT had reasoned that possession of a Master's degree in Zoology (photocopy produced and attested) implied that the respondent must have studied Zoology at the graduation level and therefore was eligible. The Court rejected that inference for present purposes, accepting UPSC's submission that (a) it is possible for candidates to change disciplines between graduation and postgraduate study and (b) UPSC cannot be expected to conduct inquisitorial inquiries to ascertain qualification details that the advertisement required to be provided.
The Court also referred to a prior Division Bench decision (WP(C) No.10058/2009) that had upheld strict compliance with advertisement requirements and rejected the argument that procedural instructions could be ignored; the Court concurred with that reasoning, stressing the practical difficulties that would follow from compelling UPSC to accept procedurally incomplete applications.
Addressing the discrimination plea, the Court accepted UPSC's explanation that administrative processing was done discipline-wise by different officers and that an Under Secretary had wrongly accepted two applications (but in a different discipline); the Court held this administrative error did not entitle the respondent to relief, observing succinctly that "Equality in the negative is not recognized by law" and "There cannot be equality in a wrong."
The Court observed the respondent's citation of Jyothi KK v. Kerala PSC — which supports the presumption that a higher qualification presupposes the lower — but noted that that decision was in the context of a specific statutory rule (Rule 10(a)(ii)). The Court did not allow that authority to displace the clear advert requirement and the repeated instructions to attach the B.Sc certificate in this case.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition filed by UPSC was allowed; the impugned order dated 9.12.2009 of the Central Administrative Tribunal was set aside and OA No. 2492/2009 filed by the respondent was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
Implications:
- The direct effect is that the respondent's challenge to UPSC's rejection of his application for failing to furnish the required B.Sc certificate is dismissed and the CAT order in his favour is quashed.
- The Court reinforced the proposition that where an advertisement for recruitment explicitly and repeatedly requires submission of specified documentary proof of minimum qualifications, failure to submit those documents may lead to rejection of the application; UPSC's insistence on procedural compliance was upheld.
- The opinion does not announce a new legal principle beyond applying existing precedents and reasoning; it follows and concurs with an earlier Division Bench decision that emphasised strict compliance with the advertisement and practical administrative constraints. The Court noted an earlier contrary line of reasoning (Jyothi KK) but distinguished it on its statutory context rather than adopting it for the facts of this case.
This summary is strictly confined to information expressly stated in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral):— In the Employment News 28th Feb. - 6th March 2009 Advertisement No. 4 was published on behalf of the Union Public Service Commission inviting applications for 37 categories of Posts. Vide Serial No. 29 of the advertisement applications were invited from eligible candidates to fill up 9 posts of Senior Scientific Officers (Biology) in Forensic Science Laboratory, Home Department, Govt. of Delhi. The qualifications essential were specified. Information at Serial No. 29 of the advertisement reads as under:—
“29. (REF. NO. F. 1/9/2009-R-II) NINE SENIOR SCIENTIFIC OFFICERS (BIOLOGY) IN FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI. Out of nine posts, two posts are permanent and seven posts are temporary. Of them, one post (temporary) is reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates, two posts (temporary) are reserved for OBC candidates and remaining six posts (2 permanent and 04 temporary) are unreserved. QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL: A. EDUCATIONAL: Master's Degree in Zoology or Botany or Anthropology or Human Biology or Bio-chemistry or Micro-Biology or Genetics or Biotechnology or Molecular Biology or Forensic Science with Zoology or Botany or Forensic Science as one of the subjects at B.Sc level from a recognized University. B. EXPERIENCE: 3 years experience in analytical methods/research therein in the relevant field. DESIRABLE: QUALIFICATIONS, DUTIES & HQ: Same as in Item No. 27 above.”
2. Relevant would it be to state that pertaining to the essential educational qualifications there was a twin requirement, firstly of the candidate possessing a Master's Degree in the 10 disciplines listed and secondly of having Zoology, Botany or Forensic Science as one of the subjects at B.Sc level.
3. After setting out the requirements of the 37 category of posts in respect whereof applications were invited, information was published pertaining to whether the posts were permanent or temporary as also the pay-scale applicable to the posts with further information of other emoluments which would be paid. Thereafter, age limit norms were disclosed followed by Instructions to the candidates. Under the caption ‘INSTRUCTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO CANDIDATES FOR RECRUITMENT BY SELECTION’, instructions were set out followed by 3 Notes as under:—
“NOTE-I: The prescribed essential qualifications are the minimum and the mere possession of the same does not entitle candidates to be called for interview.
NOTE-II: Where the number of applications received in response to an advertisement is large and it will not be convenient or possible for the Commission to Interview all the Candidates, the Commission at their discretion may restrict the number of candidates, to a reasonable limit by any or more of the following methods:
(a) On the basis of either qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement; or
(b) On the basis of experience in the relevant field; or
(c) By counting experience before or after the acquisition of essential qualifications; or (d) By holding a screening test.
The candidate should, therefore, mention all the qualifications and experience in the relevant field over and above the minimum qualifications and should attach attested certified copies of the certificate in support thereof.
NOTE-III: In regard to Educational Qualifications the mark-sheet in lieu of educational certificate will not be accepted by the Commission.”
4. Relevant would it be to note that after Clause (d) to Note II, a clear instruction has been given to the candidates that attested/self-certified copies of the certificates qua minimum qualifications should be attached. Thus, it is apparent that pertaining to the post of Senior Scientific Officers (Biology) the candidates were required to submit attested/self-certified copies of their Master's Degree in the relevant discipline as also the B.Sc degree pertaining to the discipline of Zoology or Botany or Forensic Science, for these two were the prescribed minimum educational qualifications.
5. Not only that. By way of further caution to the applicants, vide Instruction No. 7, under the caption ‘CERTIFICATE TO BE ATTACHED’, following was instructed:—
“CERTIFICATE TO BE ATTACHED: Candidates should note that they should attach with their applications attested/self certified copies of the following documents:
(i) Matriculation or equivalent certificate in support of their declaration of age.
(ii) Degree or Diploma Certificate or other certificates in support of their education qualifications.
(iii) If the qualification possessed by the candidate is equivalent, then the authority (with number and date) under which it has been so treated must be indicated;
(iv) Certificate(s) from the Head(s) of Organization(s)/Department(s) for the entire experience claimed, clearly mentioning the duration of employment (date, month and year) indicating the basic pay and consolidated pay. The certificate(s) should also mention the nature of duties performed/experience obtained in the post(s) with duration(s). These certificates should be issued on Letter Head or duly stamped by the Competent Authority.”
6. Thereafter, the candidates were cautioned vide four Notes, Note-III whereof is relevant and may be noted. It reads as under:—
“NOTE: III: If no copies of the above certificates are sent with the application, it is liable to be rejected and no appeal against its rejection will be entertained.”
7. It is apparent that it was made known to the candidates that if certificates as required are not sent with the application, the same would be liable to be rejected.
8. At the tail end of the advertisement is a re-caution printed under the caption ‘IMPORTANT’ where under 7 cautions have been printed in detail, Caution No. 3 being as under:—
“3. Copies of certificates should be attached in support of information given in the form where necessary. Any information contained in the attached certificates shall not be considered unless it is claimed in the application form.”
9. It is crystal clear and needs no reasoning that the importance of attested/self-certified certificates to be furnished as proof of having the minimum essential education qualifications was repeatedly highlighted to the candidates as a requirement of a valid application, requiring the same to be submitted along with the application form. Pertaining to the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) it is apparent that two degree certificates, one at the Master's level and the other at the Bachelor's level had to be furnished.
10. Admittedly, the respondent did not submit the B.Sc degree certificate obtained by him when he submitted the application form. Respondent was not called for an interview and upon inquiry made was informed that his application was rejected since he furnished no proof that when he obtained a graduation degree he had studied the discipline of Zoology or Botany or Forensic Science. The respondent made enquiries and learnt that two persons who had not furnished their graduation degrees had been called for interview. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and questioned the action taken by UPSC and succeeded vide impugned order dated 9.12.2009
11. The reasoning of the Tribunal is that the respondent had a Master's degree in Zoology, photocopy whereof was submitted by him after attesting the same and since the prerequisite to undertake the Master's course was a graduation degree, it could safely be inferred that the petitioner had Zoology as a subject at the graduation level.
12. UPSC has questioned the logic and the reasoning of the Tribunal by urging that today it is possible to switch disciplines at the graduation level and due to inter-disciplinary relationship it is possible to obtain a Master's degree in a discipline having no direct relationship with the same discipline at the graduation level. In any case, urges UPSC, it conducts thousands of entrance tests in which lakhs of candidates apply and that UPSC is not to conduct inquisitorial or deductive exercises; the candidates have to strictly comply with the letter of the advertisement. With reference to the advertisement in question, UPSC highlights that what more could it do other than to repeatedly highlight to the candidates the requirement of submitting the necessary attested copies of the certificates establishing the eligibility of the candidate. If the candidate chose to remain negligent, he had to suffer.
13. A similar issue had arisen before the Tribunal when various Original Applications filed by Lawyers were allowed. Pertaining to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor the advertisement concerned clearly stipulated that minimum educational qualification was a Degree in Law from a recognized University. Three years experience at the Bar was also stipulated as an eligibility condition. The applicants before the Tribunal had furnished self-attested photocopies of enrolment certificates issued by the State Bar Council. They did not submit self-attested photocopies of L.LB degree which they claimed to possess and urged before the Tribunal that it was known to one and all that the prerequisite of enrolment with the State Bar Council was a Degree in Law. The Tribunal held in their favour. By and under judgment and order dated 25.1.2010 WP(C) No. 10058/2009 and connected writ petitions were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court holding that the letter of the advertisement had to be complied with and since UPSC conducts a large number of exams, it is impracticable to expect UPSC to give a go by the instructions that have been categorically and specifically mentioned in the advertisement. The plea that procedure is the hand made of justice was repelled by holding that in practical life, to give procedure a complete go by would mean that nobody would be obliged to follow the procedure resulting in unmanageable situations. It was observed that if UPSC was compelled to accept procedurally incomplete applications there would be serious practical difficulties that it would have to encounter and this may well lead to a break down in the system.
14. We respectfully concur.
15. We have highlighted herein above the repeated emphasis at different places in the advertisement repeatedly cautioning the candidates to strictly comply with each and every requirement of the advertisement. The respondent must suffer for being negligent.
16. As regards the plea of discrimination, Shri Naresh Kaushik learned counsel for UPSC informs us that applications were invited for 37 disciplines, as detailed in the advertisement, and the same were processed discipline-wise by different Under Secretaries at UPSC and that one Under Secretary wrongly accepted applications of two persons, but not in the discipline in which the respondent had applied, but this would not entitle the respondent to any relief.
17. We concur. Equality in the negative is not recognized by law. There cannot be equality in a wrong.
18. We would be unfair if we do not note the decision dated 13.3.2002 in CA No. 2199-2200/2002 Jyothi KK v. Kerala PSC cited by learned counsel for the respondent, who urges that the said decision holds that if a person has acquired higher qualification in the same faculty (discipline) such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed. Suffice would it be to state that the said decision was in the context of Rule 10(a)(ii) of the applicable rules which stipulated:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the special Rules, the qualifications, recognized by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post.”
19. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Tribunal and as a consequence we dismiss OA No. 2492/2009 filed by the respondent.
20. No costs.
Alert