Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC), the 2^nd respondent herein, issued an advertisement in the Employment News in September 2018, for the post of Section Officer (Horticulture) in the CPWD. The qualifications stipulated for the post is B.Sc in Agriculture or Botany or Horticulture from a recognized University or Institute; and two years experience in Horticulture, including ‘Ornamental Gardening’ in any Government Department or Autonomous or Statutory Body or PSU or any Company incorporated under Companies Act,2013 or listed in Stock Exchange OR M.Sc in Agriculture with Specialization in Horticulture or M.Sc in Landscape Architecture or Floriculture from a recognized University or Institute. The selection process of the candidates comprised of holding a written test in Computer Based Mode.

The applicant responded to the notification and applied. He participated in the written test and secured marks, which were otherwise sufficient to get him selected. However, his candidature was not considered on finding that he did not have two years experience in Horticulture including ‘Ornamental Gardening’. Through a rejection notice dated 01.08.2019, the respondents have rejected candidature of 106 persons including that of the applicant. The reason mentioned against the name of the applicant is that he did not have valid experience.

This OA is filed challenging the notice dated 01.08.2019.

The applicant contends that he holds a degree in Architecture from Agriculture University, Meerut, and had experience of Horticulture in a Company by name Vedvan Consultants Private Limited and despite that he was not selected. He submits that the action of the respondents in including his name in the impugned notice is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

On behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. The contents of the advertisement, particulars of posts, method of conducting examination etc., are furnished in detail. It is stated that on scrutiny of the documents of the applicant, it emerged that he did not have any experience in ‘Ornamental Gardening’ and accordingly his case was rejected.

The applicant filed a rejoinder opposing the contentions of the respondents.

We heard Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.Rajeev Kumar,learned counsel for the Respondents.

The qualifications stipulated for the post are as under:

The first set of qualification is Graduation in Agriculture or Botany or Horticulture from a recognized University or Institute + 2 years experience in Horticulture including Ornamental Gardening. The 2^nd set of qualification is M.Sc in Agriculture with Specialization in Horticulture or M.Sc in Landscape Architecture or Floriculture from a recognized University or Institute. The applicant states that he holds a Graduation degree in Agriculture.

Coming to the question of experience, he filed a letter issued by M/s Vedvan Consultants Private Limited, which reads as under:

A perusal of the same reveals his qualification and indicates his conduct. Even if we ignore the form of the certificate, what becomes clear is that the applicant was working as a ‘Field Horticulture Manager’. Not a word is mentioned about the job description, nor it is indicated that he did any work in the Ornamental Gardening. In a vast Organization like CPWD, posts of specialized duties exist. The advertisement was issued for the post of Section Officer (Horticulture) with specific emphasis on Ornamental Gardening. The alternative qualifications at the Post Graduation level also emphasized on that.

When the certificate did not mention any thing about ‘Ornamental Gardening’, the question of the applicant being treated as qualified, does not arise.

The impugned notice contains the names of 106 candidates whose candidature was rejected mostly on this type of reasoning. If the experience of a candidate is to be treated as valid even without any reference to ‘Ornamental Gardening’, the whole exercise becomes redundant and the entire process of selection needs to be re-done. Another aspect is that the candidates who did not have experience in ‘Ornamental Gardening’ may not have applied. If it is held that any experience in Horticulture, without reference to ‘Ornamental Gardening’, can be treated to be valid, there would have been quite large number of other candidates also.

We do not find any merit in the OA and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.