NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10178 OF 2011

Union Public Service Commission … Appellant

versus

Gyan Prakash Srivastava … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the  

decision of the Union Public Service Commission (for short, `the Commission’)  

to  reject  the  respondent’s  candidature  for  the  post  of  Legal  Advisor-cum-

Standing Counsel in Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of  

Delhi was legally correct and the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short,  

‘the Tribunal’) and the Delhi High Court committed an error by nullifying the  

same.

1

2. After acquiring Degree in Law from Allahabad University in 1979, the  

respondent got himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar  

Pradesh.  He practiced in the Allahabad High Court from September 1980 to  

September  1986.   Thereafter,  he  worked as  Assistant  (Legal),  Law Officer,  

Assistant  Director  of  Estates  (Litigation),  Vigilance-cum-Legal  Officer  and  

Officer  on  Special  duty  (Litigation)  in  different  departments  of  the  Central  

Government for over two decades.   

3.  In response to Advertisement No.11 issued by the Commission, which  

was published in Employment News 13-19 June, 2009, the respondent applied  

for the post of Legal Advisor (fully described in the opening paragraph of this  

judgment).   Along with the application,  he attached copies of  the following  

documents:

(i) High School Certificate,

(ii) Degree of Bachelor of Arts awarded by Allahabad University,

(iii) Certificate  issued  by  the  Bar  Council  of  Uttar  Pradesh  under  

Section 22(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961,  

(iv) Certificate  dated  23.5.1986  issued  by  the  High  Court  Bar  

Association, Allahabad, and

(v) The  certificates  issued  by  different  departments  of  the  Central  

Government.

2

4.   The Commission rejected the respondent’s application on the ground  

that he had not enclosed any document to show that he had been awarded a  

Degree in Law by a recognized University, which is an essential qualification  

for the post of Legal Advisor.

5. The  respondent  challenged  the  decision  of  the  Commission  in  an  

application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by  

asserting  that  even  though  he  possesses  the  prescribed  qualification  and  

produced  the  relevant  documents,  the  Commission  arbitrarily  rejected  his  

candidature.  In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, it was  

averred  that  the  respondent’s  application  was  rejected  because  he  had  not  

annexed any document  to  show that  he had secured Degree in Law from a  

recognized University.  

6. The  Tribunal  referred  to  paragraph  7  of  the  advertisement,  the  

respondent’s  reply to  the questions  enumerated  in  paragraphs  9 and 10,  the  

details  of  his  educational  qualifications  and  employment  in  different  

departments of the Central Government and observed:

“What clearly emerges from the advertisement is that whereas  matriculation or equivalent certificate in support of declaration  of age had necessarily to be attached, it  was not essential  to  

3

attach the degree or diploma certificate, and it would have been  permissible for a candidate to have attached other certificates in  support  of  educational  qualification.   As  regards  degree  or  diploma, in the present case it would be the degree of law, and  if, therefore, copy of the same was not to be attached, it was  permissible to attach other certificates which may show that the  candidate had the degree.  Further, note-I would clearly indicate  that  there  was  not  to  be  any  compromise  or  concession  in  submitting  the  matriculation  or  equivalent  certificate,  like  higher secondary,  which was to  be submitted  for  purpose of  proof of age. Marks sheet and admit card as a proof of date of  birth was not to be accepted. This strict adherence, insofar as  the degree in law is concerned,  was not the requirement.   A  combined reading of column 7 with Notes-I and II appended  thereto,  as  reproduced above,  would clearly demonstrate  that  whereas, matriculation or equivalent certificate as regards the  proof of age had to be necessarily attached, the certificate of  degree in law need not have been attached, as one could show  from other certificates attached that he was having a degree in  law.”

The Tribunal distinguished the orders passed by the Delhi High Court in  

Writ Petition (C) No. 13451 of 2009 – Dr. Vineet Relhan v. U.P.S.C. decided  

on 13.1.2010 and Writ Petition No. 10058 of 2009 – U.P.S.C. v. Government of  

N.C.T. of Delhi and others decided on 25.1.2010 and observed:

“We would rest our judgment on the only issue that the present  was  a  case  where  there  was  no  requirement  of  necessarily  attaching the law degree certificate.  The requirement was that  either  it  should  be  a  degree  in  law  or  other  certificates  in  support of educational qualifications.  The applicant, in addition  to attaching the certificate  issued  by the Bar Council of his  enrollment  as  an  advocate,  had  attached  voluminous  record  which would  unmistakably  show even to  a  man  of  ordinary  prudence that  he must  have obtained degree of  law.  In this  connection,  we  may  only  mention  that  the  claim  of  the  

4

applicant that he has been working on different posts which all  essentially require degree of law, has been substantially proved  by placing necessary  documents  on record,  mention  whereof  has been made hereinbefore. We are of the considered view that  a  great  deal  of  injustice  would be caused to the applicant  if  despite his impressive service credentials and number of posts  held by him for which he was selected by UPSC only, and on  the basis of his essential degree of law and when he has stood  first, that he should be denied the well earned appointment on  the  post  of  Legal  Advisor-cum-Standing  Counsel.  The  candidature  of  the  applicant  was  rejected  in  the  category  of  those who had not attached the requisite certificates.  No effort  was made thus as to whether he answered the eligibility as per  the criteria adopted for short-listing.”

7. The Commission challenged the  Tribunal’s  order  in  Writ  Petition (C)  

No.2889 of 2011, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Division Bench  

of the High Court referred to the relevant portions of the advertisement,  the  

documents annexed with the application submitted by the respondent, noticed  

the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew  

and others (1980) 2 SCC 752 and Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (2005) 9  

SCC 779 and held that the Tribunal did not commit any error by quashing the  

decision of the Commission.

8. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the  

impugned order is liable to be set aside because it runs contrary to the orders  

passed by the High Court in four other cases, i.e. Dr. Vineet Relhan v. U.P.S.C.  

5

(supra), U.P.S.C. v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and others (supra), Writ  

Petition (C) No.9934 of 2009 – U.P.S.C. v. Neelam Yadav decided on 5.5.2010  

and Writ Petition (C) No. 2734 of 2010 - Union Public Service Commission v.  

Dheerender Singh Paliwal decided on 30.9.2010 in which similar issues were  

considered and decided in favour of the Commission.  She further argued that  

the Tribunal and the High Court committed serious error by tinkering with the  

decision  taken  by  the  Commission,  which  is  a  Constitutional  body,  not  to  

entertain  the  respondent’s  candidature.    The  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General  also  pointed  out  that  the  Commission  had  rejected  99  out  of  187  

applications  received  for  the  post  of  Legal  Advisor  and  of  them  38  were  

rejected on the ground of non-submission of the requisite documents including  

Degree in Law.   

9. Shri  Amrendra  Sharan,  learned  senior  counsel  representing  the  

respondent argued that rejection of his client’s application by the Commission  

was ex facie illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and the Tribunal and the High  

Court did not commit any error by ordering consideration of his candidature.  

Learned senior counsel submitted that even though the judgments in Charles K.  

Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew and others (supra) and Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman,  

JEE (supra)  relate  to  admissions  in  medical  colleges,  the  ratio  thereof  was  

6

rightly  invoked  by  the  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  for  deciding  the  issue  

relating to entitlement of the respondent to be considered for appointment as  

Legal Advisor.  Shri Sharan emphasized that the certificate issued by the Uttar  

Pradesh Bar Council under Section 22(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short,  

‘the Act’) is sufficient to show that the respondent possesses Degree in Law and  

the Commission had no right to reject his application.  Learned senior counsel  

then  argued  that  if  the  expression  ‘other  certificates’  in  support  of  their  

educational  qualifications’  used  in  paragraph  7(ii)  of  the  advertisement  is  

interpreted keeping in view other paragraphs thereof, it becomes clear that even  

though a candidate may not have produced copy of the Degree/Diploma in the  

particular subject, which is an essential qualification, his application cannot be  

rejected on that  ground if  he has produced other  certificate(s)/documents  to  

show that he possesses the requisite qualification.  Shri Sharan then submitted  

that the Commission was duty bound to carefully scrutinize all the documents  

annexed with the application of the respondent including the certificate issued  

by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and if that had been done, his application  

could not have been rejected on the ground of non-production of the copy of  

Degree in Law from a recognized University.

7

10. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions.  Paragraph 8  

of  the main  portion of  the advertisement  which relates  to the post  of  Legal  

Advisor  and  paragraph  7(i)  and  (ii)  of  the  instructions  and  additional  

information, which are relevant for deciding the question raised in the appeal  

are as under:

“8. (REF. NO.F.1/66/2009-R-II)  ONE LEGAL ADVISOR- CUM-STANDING  COUNSEL  IN  LAND  &  BUILDING  DEPARTMENT,  GOVT.  OF  NCT  OF  DELHI.  QUALIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL:  

A.  EDUCATIONAL: Degree  in  Law  of  a  recognized  University or equivalent.    

B. EXPERIENCE: 12 years’ experience as an advocate or as a  member of a State Judicial Service or equivalent experience in  the legal department of the Central/State Government/UTs.   

DESIRABLE: i)  Experience  of  Land  Acquisition  cases.  Ii)  Experience in Handling Revenue Lands and Acts.   

DUTIES: To conduct Litigation work on behalf of Department  in  relation  to  Land  Acquisition  cases/Compensation  cases  before District Court, RFAs and Writ Petitions before the High  Court  and the cases  before Supreme Court  of  India.   Impart  legal  advice  in  Land  Acquisition  and  related  statue.   To  supervise  the  Legal  Branches  of  the  Land  &  Building  Department and also the work assigned to him by the Govt. of  Delhi.   

HQ: Delhi/New Delhi.”

“7.CERTIFICATE TO BE ATTACHED: Candidates should note that they should attach with their  applications  attested/self  certified  copies  of  the  following  documents:

8

(i) Matriculation or equivalent certificate in support of their  declaration of age.

(ii) Degree  or  Diploma  Certificate  or  other  certificates  in  support of their educational qualifications;

NOTE: I: ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE SHOULD NOT BE  SENT WITH THE APPLICATION.  THESE SHOULD BE  PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF INTERVIEW.,

NOTE:II: Candidates should note that only the date of birth  recorded in the Matriculation, Higher Secondary Examination  Certificate  or  any  equivalent  certificate  on  the  date  of  submission of application, will be accepted by the Commission.  Mark Sheet, Admit card as a proof of date of birth will not be  accepted.   No  subsequent  request  for  its  change  will  be  considered or granted.

NOTE: III: If no copies of the above certificates are sent with  the application, it is liable to be rejected and no appeal against  its rejection will be entertained.

NOTE: IV:   The period of experience rendered by a candidate  on part time basis, daily wages, visiting/guest faculty will not  be  counted  while  calculating  the  valid  experience  for  short- listing the candidates for interview.”

11. What emerges from an analysis of the above extracted portions of the  

advertisement is that Degree in Law of a recognized University or equivalent  

was an essential qualification for the post of Legal Advisor.  In addition, 12  

years’ experience as an Advocate or as a member of a State Judicial Service or  

equivalent  experience  in  the  legal  department  of  the  Central/State  

Government/UTs was a must. In  terms  of  paragraph  7(i)  and  (ii),  the  

9

candidates were required to attach with their applications attested/self certified  

copies of Matriculation or equivalent certificate in support of their declaration  

of age and Degree or Diploma Certificate or other certificates in support of their  

educational qualifications.   

12. The  use  of  the  expression  or  other  certificates  in  support  of  their  

educational qualifications’ in paragraph 7(ii) of the instructions contained in the  

advertisement is clearly indicative of the intention of the Commission that if a  

candidate  did not  readily  have  the Degree or  Diploma Certificate,  he  could  

attach  attested  or  self  certified  copies  of  other  certificates  in  support  of  his  

educational qualifications.

13. It  is  not in dispute that after securing Degree in Law from Allahabad  

University, the respondent got himself enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar  

Pradesh and a certificate to this effect was issued under Section 22 (1) of the  

Act.  Section 24(1) of the Act specifies the conditions which a person seeking  

admission as an Advocate must fulfill.  These are:

(a) He is a citizen of India;

(b) He has completed the age of twenty-one years;

(c) He has obtained a Degree in Law –  

1

i) before the 12th day of March, 1967 from any University, in the  

territory of India; or  

(ii) before the 15th of August, 1947, from any University in any area  

which was comprised  before that  date  within India  as  defined by the  

Government of India Act, 1935; or

(iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in sub-clause  

(iiia),  after  undergoing a  three  year  course  of  study  in  law from any  

University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by  

the Bar Council of India; or

(iiia) after undergoing a course of study in law, the duration of which is  

not less than two academic years commencing from the academic year  

1967-68 or any earlier academic year from any University in India which  

is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or

(iv) in  any  other  case,  from any  University  outside  the  territory  of  

India, if the degree is recognised for the purpose of this Act by the Bar  

Council of India or;   

He is a barrister and is called to the Bar on or before the 31st day of  

December, 1976 or has passed the article clerks examination or any other  

examination  specified  by  the  High  Court  at  Bombay  or  Calcutta  for  

enrolment as an attorney of that High Court; or has obtained such other  

1

foreign qualification in law as is recognised by the Bar Council of India  

for the purpose of admission as an advocate under this Act;

(e) He fulfils such other conditions as may be specified in the rules  

made by the State Bar Council under this Chapter;

(f) He  has  paid,  in  respect  of  the  enrolment,  stamp  duty,  if  any,  

chargeable  under  the  Indian  Stamp  Act  1899  (2  of  1899),  and  an  

enrolment fee payable to the State Bar Council of six hundred rupees and  

to the Bar Council of India, one hundred and fifty rupees by way of a  

bank draft drawn in favour of that Council:

Provided that where such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes or  

the Scheduled Tribes and produces a certificate to the effect from such  

authority as may be prescribed, the enrolment fee payable by him to the  

State Bar Council shall be one hundred rupees and to the Bar Council of  

India, twenty-five rupees.  

Explanation – For  the  purposes  of  this  sub-section,  a  person shall  be  

deemed to have obtained a degree in law from a University in India on  

the  date  on  which  the  results  of  the  examination  for  that  degree  are  

published by the University on its notice-board or otherwise declaring  

him to have passed that examination.  

1

14. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced provision makes  

it clear that no person can be admitted as an Advocate unless he has obtained  

Degree in Law.  If he has obtained such degree after 12.3.1967, then he must  

have undergone a three years course of study in law from any University in  

India which is recognized for the purposes of the Act by the Bar Council of  

India.

15. Since  the  respondent  had  attached  with  his  application  the  certificate  

issued  by  the  Bar  Council  of  Uttar  Pradesh,  which  must  have  been  issued  

keeping  in  view  the  fact  that  he  possessed  Degree  in  Law  awarded  by  a  

University recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of the Act  

and the certificates issued by different departments of the Central Government  

showing his employment on different posts (for two of these posts, Degree in  

Law was an essential qualification), the Commission was not at all justified in  

refusing to entertain his application for the post of Legal Advisor.  The rejection  

of  the  respondent’s  application  may  have  been justified  only  if  it  could  be  

shown that Allahabad University is not recognized by the Bar Council of India  

for the purposes of the Act or that he had not undergone a 3 year degree course  

in law from that University.   However, it is neither the pleaded case of the  

Commission nor it has been argued before us that Allahabad University is not  

1

recognized  by  the  Bar  Council  of  India  or  that  the  respondent  had  not  

undergone 3 years’ course of study in law.  It is also not in dispute that the  

respondent had been appointed as Assistant (Legal) and Officer on Special Duty  

(Litigation)  in  the  employment  of  the  Central  Government  because  he  was  

having a Degree in Law and was duly selected by the Commission. Therefore,  

there  is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  rejection  of  the  respondent’s  

application for the post of Legal Advisor was per se illegal and arbitrary and the  

Tribunal and the High Court did not commit any error by quashing the decision  

of the Commission. True it is that the Commission is a constitutional body but  

its  actions  and  decisions  are  not  immune  from  judicial  review  and  if  a  

competent  judicial  forum  finds  that  the  impugned  action  is  ultra  vires the  

Constitution or any legislation or is otherwise arbitrary or discriminatory, there  

will be ample justification to nullify the same.

16. We may now advert to the orders passed by the Delhi High Court on  

which reliance has been placed by the learned Additional Solicitor General.  In  

Writ  Petition (C)  No.  13451 of  2009 – Dr.  Vineet  Relhan v.  Union Public  

Service Commission, the High Court upheld the order passed by the Tribunal  

which had dismissed the original application filed by the writ petitioner against  

the rejection of his application by the Commission for the post of Specialist  

1

Grade-II (Dermatology) on the ground that he had not attached the required  

documents along with his application.  A perusal of the order passed in that case  

shows that the writ  petitioner had not attached the required document  along  

with  the application  form but,  after  the last  date,  he  submitted  the relevant  

papers.   While dismissing the writ  petition,  the Division Bench of the High  

Court observed:

“Before us, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the  documents could have been produced by him later on and his  mere  failure  to  submit  the  requisite  documents  at  the  appropriate time ought not  to have an adverse effect.  In this  regard, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon Charles K.  Skaria and others v. Dr. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 SCC  752 which was followed in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE  and others, (2005) 9 SCC 779.

We have perused the two decisions cited by learned counsel for  the  Petitioner.  It  is  true  that  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  a  formalistic and ritualistic approach should not be followed in  such matters. However, in Charles K. Skaria the relevant proof  of eligibility was in fact produced by the candidates before the  selection  was  made,  as  mentioned  in  paragraph  20  of  the  Report.  In  Dolly  Chhanda  the  candidate  belonged  to  the  reserved MI category and there was some error in the certificate  issued to her as a result of which her candidature was cancelled.  This error was later rectified and under these circumstances, the  Supreme Court held that depending upon the facts of a case,  there  can be  some relaxation in  the matter  of  submission of  proof and it would not be proper to apply any rigid principle as  it pertains to the domain of procedure.

In so far as the present case is concerned, there is nothing on  record  to  suggest  that  the  Petitioner  submitted  the  requisite  documents at the appropriate time. That apart, it is not as if the  Petitioner  is  uneducated  or  could  not  have  filled  the  form  

1

intelligibly. He claims to hold a degree of M.D. (Dermatology)  and he ought to have been clear about the fact that the requisite  certificates must be furnished along with the application form.  For  his  failure  to  do  so,  the  Petitioner  has  only  himself  to  blame.”

17. In Writ Petition (C) No. 10058 of 2009, which was disposed of by order  

dated 25.1.2010, the Division Bench of the High Court considered several writ  

petitions.   The first  batch of  seven writ  petitions was directed against  order  

dated 2.4.2009 passed by the Tribunal in relation to the selection made by the  

Commission  for  recruitment  of  38  Assistant  Public  Prosecutors  in  the  

Directorate  of  Prosecution,  Government  of  NCT of  Delhi.  In  that  case,  the  

Commission  had  issued  Special  Advertisement  No.52  of  2008.   The  

respondents appeared in the recruitment test held on 3.8.2008 and cleared the  

same.  Thereafter, they submitted detailed application forms.  The Commission  

rejected their applications on the ground that the same were not accompanied  

by  the  relevant  documents  including  LL.B.  Degree  Certificates  and  

Matriculation/Senior Secondary certificates.  The respondents claimed that they  

could not attach LL.B. Degree Certificates because the same had not been made  

available by the concerned University.  They also pleaded that enrolment with  

the  Bar  Council  was  sufficient  proof  of  their  having  passed  the  LL.B.  

Examination.   The Division Bench of the High Court declined to accept the  

1

reason  put  forward  by  the  respondents  for  not  producing  LL.B.  Degree  

Certificates by making the following observations:

“In our opinion, it is difficult to believe that the LLB degree  certificate was not issued to the Respondents for several years.  It  may  be  mentioned  that  one  of  the  requirements  for  the  applicants is to have three years experience at the Bar, which  they  all  had.  It  is,  therefore,  extremely  unlikely  that  these  Respondents did not get their LLB degree for three years. In  any  event,  there  is  no  evidence  of  this,  except  their  bald  averment.

That  apart,  we  find  that  soon  after  the  rejection  of  their  candidature  on  30th  December,  2008  these  Respondents  managed to produce their LLB degree certificates within a few  days.  It  is  obvious  that  these  Respondents,  if  they  were  in  possession  of  the  LLB degree  certificate,  did  not  make  any  effort to attach it to the DAF and took the matter very casually  until  they  found  that  their  DAF was  rejected.  If  what  these  Respondents say is correct and if they did not have the LLB  degree certificate  in their  possession,  they did not  make any  special effort to obtain the LLB degree certificate despite the  requirement.  Nor did these Respondents  place on record any  material to show the special efforts made by them (if any), in  spite  of  which  they  were  unable  to  obtain  the  LLB  degree  certificate.

We are of the opinion that these Respondents were aware well  in advance,  that is,  from the issue of the Employment  News  dated 22-28 March, 2008 that they would be required to submit  the  LLB  degree  certificate  on  their  passing  the  written  examination  scheduled  for  3rd August,  2008.  These  Respondents, therefore, had sufficient time (from March, 2008  at least till August, 2008 if not November, 2008) to obtain their  LLB degree  certificate  for  submission  along  with  the  DAF.  These  Respondents,  who  did  not  make  even  this  minimum  effort for such a long time, have only themselves to blame for  their cavalier and casual approach.”

1

The  Division  Bench  then  considered  the  respondents’  plea  that  the  

enrolment certificates produced by them were sufficient for considering them  

eligible for recruitment as Assistant Public Prosecutors.  While rejecting this  

plea, the Division Bench observed:

“These Respondents say that because they were enrolled with  the Bar Council, therefore it must be assumed that they had a  valid  LLB degree  certificate.  This  is  neither  here  nor  there.  There was no requirement for a candidate to attach the proof of  enrolment with the Bar Council. Consequently, if an applicant  attached such a document, the UPSC was not obliged to take  note of it. What was required to be attached was a valid LLB  degree certificate, nothing more or less.”

18. In our view, even though the Division Bench of the High Court was right  

in  not  entertaining the respondents’  plea  that  they could not  produce  LL.B.  

Degree  Certificates  because  the  same  had  not  been  made  available  by  the  

University,  it  is  not  possible to approve the view that  enrolment  certificates  

issued  by  the  Bar  Council  were  not  sufficient  for  treating  the  respondents  

eligible for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor.  Unfortunately, the Division  

Bench  of  the  High  Court  did  not  give  due  weightage  to  the  essential  

qualifications  specified  in  the  advertisement,  i.e.  a  Degree  in  Law  of  a  

recognized University or equivalent and 3 years’ experience at the Bar and the  

fact that one can gain experience at the Bar only by practicing as an Advocate  

and for that purpose enrolment with the Bar Council is  sine qua non and, as  

1

mentioned above, the requirement of having passed the requisite examination in  

law is a must for enrolment as an Advocate with the Bar Council.  We may also  

mention  that  although,  paragraph  7  of  the  instructions  contained  in  

advertisement No.6, which was also considered by the Division Bench is almost  

identical to paragraph 7 contained in the advertisement pursuant to which the  

respondent had applied for the post of Legal Advisor, no such stipulation was  

contained in Special Advertisement No.52 of 2008 and absence thereof may  

offer semblance of justification for the conclusion recorded by the High Court.

19. The third order relied upon by the learned Additional Solicitor General is  

dated 5.5.2010 vide which Writ  Petition (C) No. 9934 of 2009 filed by the  

Commission  was  allowed  and  the  order  passed  by  the  Tribunal  directing  

consideration of the case of respondent Neelam Yadav for the post of Assistant  

Public Prosecutor was quashed.  The Division Bench simply relied upon order  

dated 25.1.2010 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 10058 of 2009 and observed:

“In  the  case  of  respondent,  this  cannot  be  disputed  that  the  respondent did not attach a valid LL.B. degree certificate, and  consequently,  the  respondent  did  not  fulfill  the  criteria  for  applying for the post  of Assistant  Public Prosecutor,  and the  order  of  the Tribunal  directing the  petitioner  to  consider  the  case of the respondent and allowing her to appear in interview,  and in case, she qualifies the interview to select her for the post  of Assistant  Public Prosecutor, therefore cannot be sustained.  There was no requirement  for submitting the certificate from  Bar Council and submitting the certificate of registration with  

1

Bar Council  would not  cure the defect  of not  submitting the  degree of LL.B. as was contemplated in the application form.”

20. In Writ Petition (C) No. 2734 of 2010, which was disposed of by the  

High  Court  vide  order  dated  30.9.2010,  the  Division  Bench  noted  that  the  

respondent  had  not  attached  B.Sc.  Degree  Certificate  with  the  application,  

which  was  an  essential  qualification  for  appointment  to  the  post  of  Senior  

Scientific Officer (Biology) in Forensic Science Laboratory and reversed the  

order  of  the  Tribunal  by  observing that  production  of  the  certificate  of  the  

Master’s Degree in Zoology was not sufficient compliance of the stipulation  

contained in the advertisement.  The Division Bench also referred to order dated  

25.1.2010  passed  in  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.  10058/2009  and  held  that  the  

Commission  did  not  commit  any  error  by  rejecting  the  candidature  of  the  

respondent Dheerender Singh Paliwal.

21. In  none  of  the  above  noted  cases,  the  High  Court  had  interpreted  a  

stipulation like the one contained in paragraph 7(ii) of the advertisement issued  

in this case.  Therefore, the orders passed in those cases cannot be relied upon  

for upsetting the well reasoned order passed by the Tribunal and the High Court  

in the present case.  

2

22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The parties are left to bear their  

own costs.  Since the respondent was allowed to participate in the process of  

selection and he was placed at No.1 in the merit list, we deem it proper to issue  

the following directions –  

1) within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this  

judgment,  the  Commission  shall  forward  the  respondent’s  name  to  the  

competent authority of the concerned department of the Central Government.

2)  within  next  two  weeks,  the  competent  authority  shall  issue  order  of  

appointment in favour of the respondent.

………………….…………………J. (G.S. Singhvi)

……………….……………………J. (Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)

New Delhi, November 30, 2011.

2