Dr. S. Rajavelu vs Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Director General of Archaeological Survey of India and The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal

This Judgment has been overruled by : Sanjay Kumar Manjul Vs. The Chairman, UPSC and Others, AIR 2007 SC 254 : (2006) 12

JT 1 : (2006) 9 SCALE 232 : (2006) 8 SCC 42 : (2006) SCC(L&S) 1780 : (2006) 6 SCR 72 Supp : (2007) 3 SLJ 322

N. Kannadasan, J.—The above writ petition is filed as against the order dated 28.4.2005 passed in O.A.No.720 of 2004 of the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Madras Branch.

The petitioner has filed an application before the Tribunal seeking a direction as against the respondents 1 and 2 to furnish the records pertaining

to the interview for the post of ''Superintending Archaeologist'' and consequently direct them to call for the applicant for the interview to the post of

''Superintending Archaeologist''. The Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as ''Commission'') issued notification to fill up the post of

''Superintending Archaeologist'' in the Department of Archaeological Survey of India in respect of four posts and for a consequential relief. Out of

four posts, one post was reserved for OBC to which the petitioner belongs to. One of the qualification as prescribed in the said notification is as

follows:-

Diploma in Archaeology from the Archaeological Survey of India with three years field experience or field experience of at least five years in

Archaeology and knowledge of Monuments and Antiquities.

The Commission has received as many as 169 applications and as per the Commission, 15 candidates alone have fulfilled the said qualifications

and all of them were called for interview which took place on 2.8.2004.

The petitioner was not called for the interview on the ground that he has not completed five years of field experience in Archaeology and

knowledge of Monuments and Antiquities, even though he has satisfied with the said qualification on the ground that he has gained experience in

the field of Epigraphy while working as a Senior Epigraphically Assistant in Archaeological Survey of India.

According to the petitioner, the field of Epigraphy forms part of the field of Archaeology and as such, his application ought to have been

considered. The Tribunal by accepting the stand taken by the respondents that the experience in the field of Epigraphy cannot be construed as an

experience in Archaeology, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved against the said order, the above writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed various materials to substantiate that the field of Epigraphy is also falls within the field of

Archaeology and accordingly contended that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for by him.

Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents contended that the field of Epigraphy is distinct from the field of Archaeology and as

such, the applicant has not fulfilled the necessary qualifications and his application was rightly rejected by the Commission.

In the light of the above submissions, the only question remains to be seen is as to whether the field of Epigraphy forms part of the field of

Archaeology and as such, whether the petitioner has fulfilled the required qualifications as per the notification of the Commission.

A counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, while describing the various fields in the Archaeological Survey of India, wherein it is mentioned

as hereunder:-

As a matter of fact, Archaeological Survey of India is a multifaceted organisation and its technical officers fall under the following separate

cadres:-

a) Archaeological Cadre

b) Conservation Cadre

c) Science Cadre

d) Epigraphy Cadre and

e) Horticulture Cadre

All these cadres are distinct and different in the Archaeological Survey of India, they are not interlinked with each other in matters of appointments

up to the level of Directors.

Though a specific stand is taken to the effect that both the fields are distinct and different, a perusal of the above observation in the counter-

affidavit of the third respondent discloses that all the five fields referred therein comes under the control of Archaeological Survey of India. As per

the note made available by the third respondent along with the counter-affidavit, it is not in dispute that Epigraphy is the study of inscriptions and

inscription literally means anything engraved on some object. Similar description is indicated in the Webster''s Encyclopedic Unabridged

Dictionary. The prospects issued by the Institute of Archaeological Survey of India in respect of all Post-graduate Diploma in Archaeology also

prescribes Epigraphy and Numismatics as one of the subject.

In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the field of Epigraphy also forms part of the field of Archaeology. Further, it is not in dispute

that the petitioner is one of the senior most person working as a Senior Epigraphical Assistant in the Department of Archaeological Survey of India.

Even though a specific plea was raised by the petitioner in ground ''G'' in respect of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition by

indicating that as many as five persons who were similarly placed like the petitioner were promoted and considered to the higher posts, in the

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, the cryptic denial is made as follows:-

In this regard it is submitted that every recruitment is an independent case. The profile of candidates called for interview varies from case to case

depending upon the number of application received, number of posts and profile of the applicants.

The respondents 1 and 2 have not chosen to take a specific stand in this regard to the effect that the said named individuals have fulfilled the

qualifications otherwise as prescribed by the Commission.

For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the claim of the petitioner has to

be construed in accordance with law. During the pendency of the above proceedings, it appears that one of the candidate who appeared for the

interview was selected and appointed to the post of ''Superintending Archaeologist'' in OBC quota. It is also reported by the respondents that

necessary communication addressed to the said selected individuals to the effect that such appointment would be subject to the result of the

present writ petition. Since we have found that the petitioner was otherwise eligible and yet he was not called for the interview, the process of

selection has become vitiated and as such the petitioner should be given an opportunity of being considered for the post by calling him for the

interview. In the peculiar circumstances, we direct that the selection already made is to be quashed and a fresh interview may be held, wherein the

petitioner and the selected candidate shall be interviewed for the purpose of making the appointment. This may be done within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.