Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s order was correct; the prescribed qualifications for Scientist‑SD were valid and age relaxation could be considered only upon application, so no interference was warranted.

Summary

The appellants, appointed as Assistant Zoologists under the 1963 Recruitment Rules, challenged the 1987 amendment that raised the qualifications for the Scientist‑SD post to a first‑class M.Sc. in Zoology with five years' experience or a doctorate. An advertisement dated 4 February 1988 invited applications for the post, but the appellants did not apply and later made representations to the government. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the 1987 rules and the selection process, alleging denial of age and qualification relaxation. The Tribunal held that the qualification requirement was a policy decision, the protest was filed after the selection was completed, and age relaxation could be considered only if the appellants had applied. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal’s view, stating there was no justification to interfere with the recruitment rules or the completed selection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the scope of judicial review over amendments to recruitment rules and the qualification criteria for a scientific post?
Can the appellants claim relaxation of qualification and age limits when they did not submit an application for the advertised post?
Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to interfere with the selection process conducted under the amended rules?

Subjects

Service LawRecruitment RulesQualification RequirementsAge RelaxationAdministrative TribunalJudicial ReviewCentral Service Appointment

Judgment

INDER JIT GUPTA AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..

AUGUST 14, 2001

·[S, RAiENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Zoological Survey of India (Central Service Class I and Class. fl Posts)
Recruitment Rule11, 1963-Assistant Zoologists-Recruited under Recruitment C
Rules, 1963 on the basis of Master's Degree in Zoology-Subsequent
amendment of Recruitment Rules in the year 1987 requiring higher
qualification-Advertisement inviting applications for the post of Scientists-
Req11isite qualification-First class Master's Degree in Zoology with 5 years
experience-Appellants though entitled to apply not applying-On challenge, D
tribunal declining to interfere with the selection process holding that the
protest against the advertisement was raised after the entire selection process
was completed-Question of relaxation of age could have been considered
if appropriate applications were made-On appeal held, no interference
called/or.
E
Appellants holding Master's Degree in Zoology were appointed as
Assistant Zoologists under Zoological Survey of India (Central Service Class
I and Class II posts) Recruitment Rules, 1963. Subsequently, the Recruitment
Rule were amended in 1987 and drastic changes were made regarding
qualification for recruitment. An advertisement was issued inviting
applications for the post of Scientist-SD from persons holding First Class F
Master's Degree in Zoology with five years experience in Faunistic Surver/
Taxonomy or Doctorate in Zoology. In respect of Government servants, the
age limit was relaxed upto five years. The appellants though entitled to apply
for the said post did not apply and after making representations approached
the tribunal for quashing the Recruitment Rules, 1987 and the action taken G
pursuant to the advertisement. Tribunal declined to interfere with the selection
proci;ss holding that the recruiting authority as a matter of policy decisio.n
could provide higher educational qualification; that the protest against the
advertisement was raised by appellants after the entire selection process was
completed and the question of relaxation of age could not ~e considered as
501 H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A appellants had not made any application before the appropriate authority.
Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

B HELD : When the Tribunal has found that the qualification necessary
for the post of Scientist-SD is M.Sc. 1st Class or Doctorate in Zoology and
that the age relaxation in respect of the appellants could have been considered
only in the event if they had made appropriate applications, there is no
justification to interfere with the order made by the tribunal, particularly
when the events had taken place as early as in 1988 when the recruitment
C were completed. [505-E, FJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 378of1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.1993 of the Central
D Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 828 of 1989.

R.K. Dhawan, M.A. Chinnaswamy and M.A. Krishna Moorthy for the
Appellants.

E T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Y.P. Mahajan, B.V. Bairam Das and C. Radhakrishnan
for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appellants before us are serving in the
F Zoological Survey of India under the control of the Ministry of Environment
& Forests. Most of them were appointed as Assistant Zoologists by direct
recruitment and some of them were promoted to the post of Assistant Zoologist
under the Zoological Survey of India (Central Service Class I and Class II
posts) Recruitment Rules, 1963, as amended from time to time. They contended
G that they were governed by the Recruitment Rules, which prescribed only the
Master's degree in Zoology as essential qualification for the post of Assistant
Zoologist and experience relating to the posts above that of the Assistant
Zoologist would be Scientist-8 and so on.

Annexure-11 to the Recruitment Rules provides the norms for recruitment
H to the scientific pos.ts as under:
INDER JIT GUPTA v. U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 503
SC SD SE SF SG G H A
Rs.2200 Rs.3000- Rs.3700 Rs.4500 Rs.5100 Rs.5900 Rs.5900
-7 5- 100· -125- -150- -150- -200- -200-
2800- 3500 4700· 5700 5700 6700 7300
EB-I 00- -1,25- ISO- -200
4000 ' 4500 5000 -6300
B
Master's degree Fresh +5 +10
in Science or
equivalent

Bachelor's Fresh +5 +10
degree in
engineering,
technology or c
equivalent

M.B.B.S. or Fresh +5 +10
equivalent
-
Doctorate in - Fresh +5
D
Science,
technology or
engineering.

Notes :

I. Direct recruits may given in deserving cases so recorded by the Selection/ E
Departmental Recruitment Committee a high.er initial start than the
minimum of the scale to which they are appointed. However, such an
initial start shall not exce•d five advance increments over the minimum
of the scale.

2. +5, +10 denote minimum number of years of experience required in
addition to basic educational qualifications.
3. , Specific disciplines for educational qualifications will be decided at the F
time of filling up of a post based on the job requirements.

4. For direct recruitment for the posts of Scientist SF and above, the basic
educational qualifications and the experience shall be the same as applicable
to the officers of the Department for promotion to these grades under
the scheme of flexible complementing.
5. Service rendered in the field of forestry. and wildlife will be treated as G
relevant experience for posts for which such experience is considered
appropriate by the Department. .fn case of applicants belonging to the
Indian Forest Service educational qualifications prescribed for such posts
may be relaxed by the Department.
6. The exact experience in a particular field of discipline shall be as
indicated in the advertiscn1ent for the relevant posts. H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R.
/
A The Recruitment Rules also imposed age limit, which was relax11ble JJpto
5 years for Government servants. They contended that by ame~dment made
to the Recruitment Rules in 1987 drastic changes were effected in regard to
the qualification to the detriment of the vested rights of the appellants.

An advertisement was made on 4.2.1988 in the local newspaper by the
B Ministry of Environment & Forests to fill up the post of Scientist-SD stating
that essential qualification as First Class Master's Degree in Zoology with 5 •
years experience in Faunistic Survey/Taxonomy or Doctorate in Zoology. Age
limit mentioned therein was relaxable upto 5 years in respect of Government
servants unless stated otherwise. In view of the several conditions imposed
C in the said notification, thought under the relevant rules, they were entitled
to apply for the said post they did not apply for the same. However, they
made certain representations to the Government. At that stage, they approached
the Tribunal on the ground that the relaxation regarding qualification and age
ought to have been extended to the appellants in terms of Recruitment Rules
as in force in 1963; that the qualification and age limit prescribed in the
D impugned rules of 1987 is arbitrary and has no reasonable nexus to the
concerned post inasmuch as for higher posts such restrictions have been
removed and lesser qualifications have been prescribed and that relaxing
basic educational qualification and age limit subsequent to original
advertisement of 4.2.88 without any re-advertisement amounts to denial of
.E equal opportunity to all eligible candidates. The appellants sought for quashing
of the relevant Recruitment Rules and the action taken pursuant to the
advertisement dated 4.2.88 and further direction not to give effect to the result
of the said interviews which had been held and to allow the appellants and
other candidates to apply for the posts of Scientist-SD for appointment to the
said posts and to incorporate such relaxed basic educational qualification and
F age limit in the prescribed rules.
The said applications filed by the appellants were seriously contested
by respondents and it was stated that for the post of Scientist-SD educational
qualification is the First Class Master's Degree in Zoology with 5 years
experience in Faunistic Survey/Taxonomy or Doctorate in Zoology. In this
G case, as persons possessing Ph.D. in Zoology have been called for the
interview, insistence upon First Class in M.Sc. was not required and such
condition had not been relaxed at all. If the appellants had s1,1bmitted application
before the recruiting authority stating their qualifications and experience, their
applications would have certainly been considered.

H The Tribunal took the view that if for the promotional post of Scientist-
INDER JIT GUPTA v. U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 505
SD the recruiting authority decided that essential qualification would be A
M.Sc. !st Class or Doctorate in Zoology, it would be a matter of policy and
the Tribunal cannot interfere with the same. The Tribunal also noticed that
protests against the advertisement made in 1988 that it should have been on
the basis of the Recruitment Rules effective prior io 1987 was not raised earlier
and after the entire pro.cess of selection is completed, the point cannot now
be considered or examined as the appellants had acquiesced in the action B
taken by the respondents. The question of relaxing their age as per Recruitment
Rules also could not be considered inasmuch as the appellants had not made
applications before the authority nor sought for any relaxation. In view of this
position, the Tribunal did not interfere with the selection made and dismissed
the same. The Tribunal, in particular, noticed as under : c
"... when the proper advertisement in terms of Recruitment Rules has
been issued: interview was made and selection held. As we are of the
view. that the Union of India has the authority to change the
Recruitment Rules and to provide a higher educational qualification
than that provided in the earlier rules and that being the policy of the D
Government, the Court or the Tribunal should not interfere with such
Recruitment Rules."

The learned counsel for the appellants except to reiterate the arguments
advanced before the Tribunal did not advance any new argument. In the
circumstances when the Tribunal has found that the qualification necessary E
for the post of Scientist-SD is M.Sc. 1st Class or Doctorate in Zoology and
that the age relaxation in respect of the appellants could have been considered
only in the event if they had made appropriate application, we hardly find any
justification to interfere with the order made by the Tribunal particularly when
the events had taken place as. early as in 1988 when the recruitment were F
completed.

In that view of the matter, we decline to interfere with the order made
by the Tribunal and this appeal shall stand dismissed. No costs.

S.V.K. Appeal dismissed.