Supreme Court of India

MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONversusDR. BHANUMATI PURUSHOTTAM TATHOD AND ORS.

Citation: 1997 INSC 416
Decided: 21 April 1997
Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYD P WADHWA

Holding

The fifteen‑year experience requirement is a valid qualification, the respondent was correctly excluded, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award damages; thus the Tribunal’s order is set aside.

Summary

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission sought to appoint a Deputy Medical Superintendent, prescribing a post‑graduation in Medicine and fifteen years of experience as mandatory qualifications. Dr. Bhanumati Purushottam Tathod, the respondent, had only fourteen years of experience and was not called for interview. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that the fifteen‑year experience requirement was vague, declared the respondent wrongly excluded, and awarded exemplary costs and compensation. On appeal, the Court held that the experience requirement was a clear, valid qualification and that the respondent’s rejection was in accordance with the rules, not wrongful. The Court further held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award damages in a service recruitment matter. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the stipulated fifteen years of experience for the post of Deputy Medical Superintendent is a vague condition that can be disregarded.
Whether the respondent’s rejection constitutes a wrongful rejection or a legitimate rejection under the prescribed rules.
Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award exemplary costs and compensation in a service recruitment dispute.

Subjects

service recruitmentqualification criteriavagueness of requirementtribunal jurisdictiondamagesexemplary costsappointmentDeputy Medical Superintendent

Judgment

A                    MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE
                     •      COMMISSION
                                         v.
                      DR. BHANUMATI PURUSHOTTAM
                            TATHOD AND ORS.
B                                APRIL 21, 1997

                  (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

            Se1Vice Law :
c        Appointment-Post of Deputy Medical Superintendent-Prescribed
  qualification post graduation in Medicine and 15 years experience-Candidate
  with 14 years experience not called for intelView-Tribunal holding that the
  condition of 15 years expe1ience was vague and he was wrongly excluded from
  zone of consideration-<Jranted exemplary costs and compensation-011 ap-
D peal held, it was not a case of wrongful rejection but of rejection in accord-
  ance with the rules-Tribunal could not award any damages as it is beyond
  its jurisdiction to grant relief by way of damages-Practice & Procedure.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3142 of
E   1997.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.96 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No. 954 of 1995.

            D.M. Nargolkar for the Appellant.
F           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Though notice was served on the contesting respondent, he is not
    appearing either in perscn or through counsel.

            Leave granted. We have learned counsel for the appellant.
G
       The admitted position is that for appointment to the post of Deputy
  Medical Superintendent, qualification prescribed is of post graduation in
  Medicine and 15 years' experience. Admittedly, the respondent did not
  possess 15 years' experience. He had only 14 years' experience. The
H Tribunal in the impugned order dated October 24, 1996 in O.A. No. 954/97
                                     878
       MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. B.P. TATHOD               879

has held that the condition of 15 years experience is vague and, therefore,      A
the respondent was wrongly excluded from the zone of consideration
without calling for the interview. Since the selection had already taken
place, the Tribunal has granted exemplary costs and compensation to the
respondent. We find that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is wholly
illegal and unwarranted. The only question the Tribunal was required to
consider was whether the respondent fulfilled the qualifications prescribed      B
for the post. In view of the admitted position that 15 years' experience is
one of the qualifications for selection and since the respondent did not
possess the same, the respondent was rightly not called for interview. The
Tribunal, therefore, not justified in holding that the respondent was wrong-
fully excluded from being called for interview for selection. It is not a case   c
of wrongful rejection, but of rejection in accordance with the rules. Even
otherwise also, the Tribunal could not award any damages as it is beyond
its jurisdiction to grant relief by way of damages.

      The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal
stands set aside. No costs.                                                      D
G.N.                                                         Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service recruitment"Sign in to search