TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question now. We shall call them 'respondents' for convenience. A brief resume of the events which have led to the filing of these appeals is necessary. ON 30.6.1989, the MCD invited applications for filling up 60 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Engineering Department of the MCD. The applications were to be received before 31.7.89. The essential qualifications for appointment were (a) degree in Civil Engineering and (b) two years' professional experience. Age was not to exceed 30 years ( relaxable for government servants and MCD employees). 412 applications were received from the departmental candidates as well others. The Selection Board of the MCD had to follow the following norms for awarding marks: 1. For Qualifications: 10 marks Break up Upto 50% marks 5 marks 51% to 60% marks 6 marks 61% to 70% marks 7 marks 71% to 80% marks 8 marks 81% to 90% marks 9 marks 91% TO 100% marks 10 marks 2. For Experience Break up 5 marks (i) Upto two years' experience Nil (ii) 3 to 12 years and above experience at the rate of 1/2 marks i.e. for 10 years 5 marks (iii) Viva-voce 15 marks The MCD prepared a list of Sixty candidates and all of them had scored 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivision Bench felt that this was a humanitarian issue. The Court then put the matter before the parties. It appears that there was `consent' between the parties that the services of these candidates need not be terminated but could be continued. The Division Bench observed: Keeping in view, the human problems involved in the case, learned counsel for the parties consented to an order being made disposing of these appeals/Writ petitions on the basis of the following criteria: (a) Candidates, who were earlier found eligible and appointed by the MCD and are later found by Mr. Justice Jain to be ineligible for appointment may be allowed to continue in service. (b) Candidates, who were really found ineligible by the MCD and are later found by Mr. Justice Jain to be eligible for appointment and who have approached the Court within reasonable time, should be accommodated by giving them employment against existing vacancies. (c) Candidates, who are found by Mr. Justice Jain to be ineligible for appointment on the ground that they had obtained employment by producing false/fictitious certificate, should be cashiered. The High Court then took up certain cases of candidat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere all fully qualified and their appointments were not irregular nor tainted as observed by the High Court. They had the necessary degree qualification or experience of two years by the due date and they were fully eligible. The observations of the High Court about their ineligibility or their appointments being irregular or tainted was, according to learned senior counsel, wholly unwarranted. So far as their age was concerned, it was agreed before us that there was `consent' to that extent. Sri P.P.Rao contended that in case of diploma holders, Justice Jain rightly took into account the experience of the respondents gained before they obtained the degree. But Counsel argued that Justice Jain went wrong in omitting the experience gained before the date of issuance of the marks certificates or experience gained before the actual announcement of degree results. In reply to the said contentions, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents had not filed any Special Leave petition in time to attack the finding of the Division Bench that the respondents' appointments were irregular or were tainted . It was argued that respondents could not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phen Joseph Vs. Union of India (1997(4) SCC 753). On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, Sri Ravinder Sethi and Sri S.B. Sanyal contended that the experience of the respondents while holding diploma, could not be counted. They relied upon N. Suresh Nathan Vs. Union of India (1992 Supple. (1) SCC 584). We may point out that in the present case, the relevant provisions applicable and the notification dated 30.6.89 inviting applications refer to essential qualification as (i) Degree and (ii) 2 years' 'professional' experience. As stated earlier, experience upto 2 years is the minimum and those above 2 years, get 1/2 marks each year's experience ranging between 3 to 12 years, the maximum marks being 5 for experience. We may at the outset state that the provision regarding experience speaks only of professional experience for two years and does not, in any manner, connect it with the degree qualification. In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 332) where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of services in the feeder post together with educational qualification enables a candidate to be considered for promotions, it will not be proper to count the experience only from the date of acquisition of superior educational qualification because such interpretation will violate the very purpose to give incentive to the employee to acquire higher education . This decision in D.Stephen's case also supports the case of the respondents. Therefore, on the language of the notification dated 30.6.89, we are of the view that the 2 years professional experience need not entirely be experience gained after obtaining the degree. It is true that in one of the counter-affidavits in CWP 606/1985, the MCD took the view that the experience ought to be after acquiring degree. But the clarification of the UPSC dated 13.9.85 addressed to the MCD made it clear that the entire service including the service rendered before obtaining degree was to be taken into consideration. This letter has, in fact, been relied upon by the learned Single Judge of the High Court for holding that service rendered before acquiring the degree was to be counted. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce from 15.6.87 to 23.7.87 is not to be considered, the candidate will be ineligible. The issue relating to Mr. Ailwadi and Mr. Naresh Gupta is a common issue. In the case before us, the words used in the rules and notification are `professional experience' of two years. The narrow question is whether the experience gained after the examination and before the publication of results, can be taken into account. We may point out that this issue does not concern itself with a question sometimes raised in relation to cases where the result of the examination is not declared before the date of advertisement or last date of receipt of application and is announced after such date. Such cases may stand on a different footing. We are aware that, in regard to those cases, there are various rulings of this Court as to which is the crucial date. Here we are not concerned with such an issue because the advertisement is of 1989 and long before that in all the cases, the degree results were announced and degree certificates/marks sheets were also obtained. We are here concerned with a limited question as to whether the experience gained after campus selection, i.e., after final examination in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
