Court Cannot Substitute Its View For Qualification Requirements Prescribed By Organization While Advertising Vacancies: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot substitute their view for the qualification requirements prescribed by an organization while advertising vacancies to a post.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed:
"It is open to an organization while advertising its vacancies to prescribe qualifications as may be suitable, in the view of the Organization for appointment to the said post. Courts cannot substitute its view for the requirements prescribed by the organization."
The bench thus dismissed a plea filed by one Priyanka Agarwal, who had applied for a post of Medical Physicist in city's Safdarjung Hospital under the unreserved Category, challenging an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing her original application.
The essential educational qualification, as per the advertisement for the vacancies, was that the candidate must have a Post Graduate degree in Physics along with Post M.Sc. Diploma in Radiological or Medical Physics. There was also an additional requirement in the Ad that a candidate must have done an internship of minimum 12 months in a recognised well equipped Radiation Therapy Department.
The petitioner however had not undergone the requisite internship of minimum 12 months.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that for completion of a Diploma, prior to 2012, there was no requirement of a one year internship. It was also argued that the said requirement was introduced only after 2012. The petitioner's counsel thus argued that the one year internship was not required.
Rejecting the contention, the bench said:
"We are unable to accept this contention for the reason that the advertisement, in addition to prescribing an educational qualification of a Post Graduate degree and a Post M.Sc. Diploma also requires an internship of a minimum 12 months in a recognized well equipped Radiation Therapy Department, which admittedly the petitioner does not possess."
The plea was dismissed, observing that Agarwal did not satisfy the requisite essential qualification and as such was not qualified for the post.
"As noticed hereinabove, since the petitioner does not satisfy the prescribed educational qualification, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal rejecting the Original Application of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly without merit and is dismissed," the court ordered.
Title: MS PRIYANKA AGARWAL v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 966