Rajesh Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)

Briefly stated,  the facts of the current  O.A.  are that the respondent  No.2  vide  advertisement  dated  16-22  August,  2014 advertised various posts in the officers‟ cadre and non-teaching mposts for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14. Subsequently, vide an addendum dated 23-29 August, 2014 to the advertisement, it was proposed that recruitment also be held for filling up three vacancies (unreasearved-01, other backward classes-2) for the post of Finance Officer in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS).

The recruitment process for the post of Finance Officer comprised of two written tests followed by a personal interview of the candidates, qualifying the first two written rounds. In the aforementioned addendum to the Recruitment advertisement, it was  mentioned  that  there  is  requirement  of  „MBA  with  2  years experience‟ for the post of Finance Officer. The applicant avers that he possessed MBA (Finance) Degree from Karnataka State Open University in 2013 and had the requisite experience having worked for a period of 10 years, including five years as Project Officer with DEP-SSA Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200.

The applicant applied for the post of Finance Officer on 15.09.2014, and appeared in both the written tests on 08.11.2014 and 25.02.2015 respectively. He qualified in the OBC list, becoming eligible for personal interview to be held on 22.04.2015. When the applicant went for interview on 22.04.2015, he was told that he was not qualified for the post of Finance Officer since the respondents were looking for someone with 2-3 years experience„post qualification‟ of MBA. The applicant submits that he was deprived by the respondent No.2‟s officials from appearing in the interview though he topped the preliminary rounds and his documents had already been checked. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the current O.A. seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Set aside the Respondent No. 2‟s refusal of interview to the Applicant.

(ii) Direct the Respondent No.2 to allow the Applicant to appear for the interview for the post of Finance Officer, and to allow his subsequent appointment if successful therein.

(iii) In the event that the Respondent No.2‟s recruitment rules are contrary to the Advertisement issued by the Respondent No.2‟s, direct the Respondent No.2 to modify the Recruitment Rules such that prior experience in an identical function be considered.

(iv) Grant any other or further reliefs in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondent No.2."

In reply, the respondents have stated that KVS is an autonomous organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 fully financed by the Government of India. The policy decisions of the KVS are taken by the Board of Governors consisting of eminent educationists and administrators from all over the country. The service conditions of KVS employees are governed by the Education Code of KVS in vogue. They contend that respondent No.1 i.e. Union of India, Ministry of HRD has nothing to do with the day to day affairs and activities of KVS and have requested that respondent No.1 be deleted from the array of parties.

4.1 The respondents (KVS) state that the applicant had applied for the post of Finance Officer in response to Addendum dated 23-29 August, 2014 to the Advertisement dated 16-22 August, 2014. He appeared in the written examination and was shortlisted for interview under OBC category for the said post. He was rightly denied permission to participate in the interview on the ground that he does not possess two years experience on 15.09.2014 being the cut-off date of eligibility with regard to essential qualification and experience required for the post. Hence, they pray that the O.A. is not maintainable.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant Sh. Aditya Singh Puar reiterated the averments already made in the original application. He emphasized that the applicant possesses all the qualifications required for the post of Finance Officer since he had worked for a period of 10 years including 05 years as Project Officer with DEP-SSA Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi at a post, which carried the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-. He vehemently argued that in the Addendum to the recruitment Advertisement dated 16-22.08.2014, the essential qualification and experience for the post of Finance Officer was MBA with two years experience which does not necessarily mean two years experience post the MBA degree. He argued that this has not been specifically mentioned in the Addendum, hence the applicant (who possessed more experience than what was required) was wrongly prevented from appearing in the interview despite having veritably topped the preliminary rounds. He, therefore, prayed that respondents should be directed to allow the applicant to appear for the interview for the post of Finance Officer and to allow him subsequent appointment, if he is successful.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Sh. U.N. Singh stated that the Addendum dated 23-29 August, 2014 clearly mentions that for any applicant to be eligible, for appointment, the following qualifications are necessary viz:-

"Essential Qualification:

i. B.Com with 50% marks in the aggregate and atleast 4 years experience as Accounts Officer/Audit Officer OR M.Com with 50% marks and atleast 3 years experience as Accounts Officer/Audit Officer OR CA(Inter)/ICWA(Inter)/MBA with 2 years experience.

Ii Knowledge of Computer applications."

Clearly, the applicant, who passed his MBA in July, 2013 cannot claim to have acquired a 02 years experience on 15.09.2014, which was the cut-off date for the eligibility with regard to essential qualification & experience.

We have considered the facts placed before us carefully, as well as the pleadings of both the counsels made during the course of hearing.

We have gone through the facts of the case and are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant, who acquired MBA Degree only in July, 2013, obviously could not (did not) possess two years experience required as per the Addendum issued for the post applied for. Though, he cleared the first two rounds of screening but was rightly denied the participation in the interview process when it was discovered that he did not fulfill the eligibility criterion of 02 years experience after MBA. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that since the Addendum does not specifically mention that the experience must be post the MBA degree, hence the earlier experience acquired during his stint as Project Officer with DEP-SSA, IGNOU, where he worked on an equivalent post, be taken to meet the criteria of MBA with two years experience, is not corrrect. The wordings "MBA with two years experience", necessarily carry the inference that only an MBA with 02 years experience post the degree would be eligible for the post. This is a logical inference and in our view, cannot be interpreted otherwise. In view of the same, we conclude that there is no merit in the claim of the applicant. The O.A. being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. No costs.