UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus SUKANTA KAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 08-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
... ,.. 
v. 
SUKANTA KAR AND ANR. 
MAY 8, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.) 
Service Law: 
-~ 
;. 
c 
Recruitment-By promotion-Eligibility-Dispute with regard to 
eligibility of Respondent No. I for the post of Deputy Advisor (Training) in 
Central Public Health and Environmental Organisation of Urban Development 
Ministry-Respondent No. I is a Departmental Scientific Officer-Both 
Tribunal and the High Court held that he was eligible-Correctness of-
Held, not correct-Since Respondent No. I did not possess the requisite 
D educational qualification laid down under the Rules-Ministry of Works and 
Housing, Deputy Advisor (Training) Recruitment Rules, 1985. 
The controversy in the present appeal relates to the eligibility of 
~ 
Respondent No.1 for recruitment by promotion to the post of Deputy Advisor 
'"'\ 
(fraining) in the Central Public Health and Environmental Organisation of 
E the Urban Development Ministry. Respondent No.1 is a Departmental 
Scientific Officer. 
According to the appellant, Respondent No.1 is ineligible since he did 
not possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed in the Ministry 
F 
of Works and Housing, Deputy Advisor (Training) Recruitment Rules, 1985 
viz. a Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognized university. 
Respondent No.1 however contended that he was holding the Degree of 
."I 
Master of Science and could not be expected to hold Degree in Civil 
Engineering after rendering five years regular service as a Scientific Officer. 
G 
He contended that in terms of the special provisions made in Column 11 (2) 
of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, five years regular service by a 
Departmental Scientific Officer is enough and there is no requirement to 
fulfill the essential educational qualification of a Degree in Civil Engineering 
or equivalent as prescribed in columns 7, 8 and 10 of the Schedule to the 
Recruitment Rules. 
_, .. 
H 
128 
U.P.S.C. v. SUKANTA KAR 
129 
-~ 
Both the Tribunal and the High Court on interpretation of the said A 
Recruitment Rules held that Respondent No. l was eligible. Hence the present 
appeal 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In Column 8 of the Recruitment Rules, it is provided that the B 
educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case 
of promotees but not age qualification. 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. [Paras 10 and 11) (131-E-F; 132-C) 
c 
2. 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 D 
source i.e. Permanent Scientific Officer. In fact, the letter of the Government 
-'( 
of India, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation of October 
T 
2001 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. I was not eligible as he did not possess E 
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.I. The stand of the Union seems to be varying at different points 
of time. Initially in the application of respondent No. I 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 F 
confirmed. Above being the position, the Tribunal and the High Court were 
"' 
not justified in holding that respondent No.I was eligible. In view of the 
T 
analysis made above, it is clear that he did not possess the educational 
qualification. [Para 12) [132-D-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2387 of2007. 
G 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2005 of the High Court 
of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 7572 of2002 . 
......_ 
S.K. Misra, K. V. Mohan 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.