Ayush Chandra & Others vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others

Sanjib Banerjee, J.—Since the petitioners have a common cause of action and the petitioners were only seeking to obtain an employment in these difficult times, the common cause has been permitted to be canvassed by way of a single petition without insisting on technicalities.

The petitioners applied for the post of naval architect pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited in the year 2015. The petitioners all appear to have degrees in marine engineering from recognised universities or institutions, but the petitioners overlooked the requirements for the post as indicated in the second note appended to the employment notification published by the respondent company. Such note required any of the following degrees as minimum qualification to apply for the post of naval architect: naval architecture; ocean engineering & naval architecture; naval architecture & shipbuilding; naval architecture & marine engineering; and, naval architecture & ocean engineering.

Unfortunately for the four petitioners, none of them possessed the requisite degree to be eligible for the post. Nonetheless, the petitioners applied by indicating the degree to have a component of naval architecture though they only possessed marine engineering degrees. It is easy to sympathise with the petitioners, given the lack of employment opportunities in the present days.

Since the application was required to be submitted online and the credentials were to be inspected at a subsequent stage, on the basis of the petitioners'' erroneous representation as to the nature of their degrees, the petitioners were issued admission forms to take part in the written examination. The petitioners fared well enough in the written examination to be shortlisted for the interview thereafter. In was only upon the certificates and other credentials being checked at or prior to the interview, that the respondents discovered that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualifications.

The petitioners suggest that since they had naval architecture as a paper or as a part of their marine engineering curriculum and since it is evident that the petitioners could clear the written examination in the selection process, the insistence on a degree referring to naval architecture is arbitrary.

Such submission cannot be accepted since the fundamental terms and the essential eligibility criteria stipulated in the relevant notice required a degree in naval architecture. Since naval architecture is not altogether unrelated to marine engineering, it is possible that some instructions in naval architecture are given in course of a marine engineering degree just as some elements of marine engineering may be a part of the curriculum for a naval architecture degree. But at the end of the day, the respondents wanted engineers in the post of naval architect and it is not arbitrary to insist on naval architecture being the primary field in the engineering course.

Since it is evident that the petitioners did not possess the requisite essential criterion to offer themselves for the post, WP 1361(W) of 2016 is dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.