Haritha G vs Union Of India & Ors.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The polemic before us pirouettes on the phrase ‘relevant experience’, as stipulated for the post in question; the meaning of which, we are called upon to answer.

The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge on various grounds, but primarily asserting that the assessment of her credentials - for consideration for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant (Electronics) in the Airports Authority of India – has been done incorrectly, unlawfully, and hence illegally.

Sri.P.Raveendran – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned Single Judge did not consider his client's contentions in their proper perspective, but proceeded to find against her, concluding that her cited experience was improper and insufficient. He contended that, when the certificate of experience produced by her – namely Ext.P6, showed that she was an ‘Instructor’ in the Electronics and Communication Branch, at a technical institute by name 'M/s Amet Illam of Technologies', Kollam, the learned Judge ought not to have rejected it on the ground that such was not in conformity with the requirements of the post.

Sri.P.Raveendran then made an alternative submission that, if the experience claimed by his client was found to be insufficient, the same would be so in the case of the others - including the candidate who was appointed, namely respondent No.7 - because, according to her information, he was an Assistant Professor, which is not substantially different from an ‘Instructor’. He contended that, when the experience of both the candidates is similar, if not analogous, the exclusion of his client from the selection process, was illegal and unlawful.

Sri.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI), instructed by Sri.Sabu George – learned Standing Counsel for the Airports Authority of India, in response, argued that, when the appellant concedes that she had applied for the post pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, it was incumbent upon her to establish that her credentials are in conformity with the stipulations contained therein. He pointed out that, apart from the fact that the appellant may be over aged, she did not have any cogent document to prove the experience mandated in the notification; and hence that the Selection Committee had no other option, but not to include her in the zone of consideration. He added that the situation is exacerbated since Ext.P6 certificate produced by her has been found forged.

Sri.A.R.L.Sundaresan then expatiated his legal contention, explaining that, as evident from paragraph (iii) of Ext.P1, the experience required for being appointed as a Senior Assistant (Electronics) is “Two years relevant experience in the concerned discipline. (In the field of Electronics/ Telecommunication/ Radio Engineering)” (sic); and that this must be on a full-time basis. He argued that, in contradistinction, Ext.P6 experience certificate produced by the appellant merely states that she was an ‘Instructor’ in a private institute in Electronics and Telecommunication, without indicating that it was a full-time position, or defining what the designation 'Instructor' means. He predicated that, in any event, when the notification called for ‘relevant experience’, it construes experience which is relevant to the post, namely that of Senior Assistant (Electronics); and that hence, when the appellant disclosed herself to have been an ‘Instructor’ – assuming that Ext.P6 Certificate can be accepted – it can only mean a ‘teacher’; and hence, such experience - even if it is taken to have been on a full-time basis - cannot be relevant to the post in question.

Sri.A.R.L.Sundaresan added that, from any angle of consideration, the appellant cannot seek appointment because, Ext.P6 experience certificate, is not from an institution which is recognized or included in Annexure R2(a), the list of approved Diploma Institutes; and concluded, asserting that the learned Single Judge has evaluated the afore issues without error, thus rendering this Appeal without any merit.

When we examine the judgment impugned, we notice that the learned Single Judge has adverted to the job profile of the post -‘Senior Assistant (Electronics)’, in paragraph 12 thereof; to hold that the stated experience of the appellant as an ‘Instructor’ would not suffice.

We record that we are in approval with the views and holdings of the learned Single Judge for the reasons we will presently state.

As correctly pointed out by Sri.A.R.L.Sundaresan, Ext.P1 notification, in paragraph (iii) thereof, provides that the experience for the post of ‘Senior Assistant (Electronics)’ shall be two years ‘relevant experience’ in the concerned discipline.

The question is: what is ‘relevant experience’?

Pertinently, Sri.P.Raveendran – learned counsel for the appellant, argued that, even though the words used are ‘relevant experience’, it is capable of varied interpretations; and that too, subjectively.

We are afraid that we cannot offer approval to the above opinion of Sri.P.Raveendran because, once the post is specifically defined, then the experience required - namely ‘relevant experience’ - can only be that which is relevant to the post. There can be no other ambit to these words; and axiomatically there cannot be subjectivity in it either. It is expressly admitted by the appellant that the post of ‘Senior Assistant (Electronics)’ does not entail ‘teaching’; and is not one that can be described to be a teaching post.

In contradistinction, concededly as noticed supra, the appellant produced Ext.P6 -certificate of experience, to show that she worked as “Instructor in Electronics and Communication branch” (sic)

The word ‘Instructor’ in the certificate is not defined; but her learned counsel asserts that it means that the appellant gathered ‘hands-on experience’ in the branches of Electronics and Communication. This is wholly speculative and conjectural; and we cannot accept mere statements, without substantiation.

To add to this, the impediment faced by the appellant is that the certificate produced by her does not state that her job as an ‘Instructor’ was a full-time one.

Be that as it may, as indited above, the experience mandated is ‘relevant experience’; and ineluctably, this must relate to the post in question. Conversely, any experience which is not relevant to the post, cannot be construed to be in conformity with the prescriptions in the notification.

As admitted, the appellant worked as an ‘Instructor’ - a teacher; while the post in question is not a teaching one. Therefore, unless the appellant was able to show that the experience she had gained had relevance to the post in question, a certificate from a private teaching institution, like Ext.P6, surely would not have been sufficient to underpin her claim.

The surviving contention of Sri.P.Raveendran is that his client had not been informed why she had been found not suitable, or qualified, by the Selection Committee. We are afraid that this is not a requirement in the process; and candidates cannot seek to be individually informed of the specific reasons for their exclusion. This is all the more in the present case where, as concluded above, the appellant cannot be construed to have acquired experience in the concerned discipline, ‘relevant’ to the post in question.

We, therefore, grant imprimatur to the impugned judgment; and consequently, dismiss this Appeal.

That said, we feel it is necessary to add that our observations herein, or our judgment, are not a reflection on the competence of the appellant. She might be a very brilliant student and a competent professional, manifest from the fact that she was included as Rank No. 1 in the initial process; but, unfortunately, she has been disqualified for a technical reason, which we are certain would not prevent her from pursuing her dreams and attaining heights she aims for herself in future. We wish her good luck; and reiteratingly clarify that this judgment shall not stand against her in her future prospects.