Rajwant Sandhu, Member, (A).

1. This OA was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in December, 2010 and was rejected vide common order dated 19.10.2012 passed in OA No. 369/CH/2011 which was allowed. While the selection of Dr. Alka Sehgal as Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh (applicant in OA No. 369/CH/2011) was upheld, the relief sought by Dr. Poonam Goel for setting aside the selection of Dr. Alka Sehgal was rejected mainly on the ground that a candidate who has participated in the selection process, could not subsequently challenge the selection made. The appointment of Dr. Alka Sehgal as Professor was delayed and ultimately she got her appointment as such on 27.03.2015. The applicant in the present OA had meanwhile filed CWP No. 12884-CAT of 2013 titled Poonam Goel Vs. UOI & Ors. and this was decided along with other CWP No. 13917-CAT of 2013 filed by the Chandigarh Administration & Anr. Vs. CAT, Chandigarh Bench & Ors. through judgement dated 28.04.2015. CWP No. 4603-CAT of 2014 filed by Dr. Alka Sehgal Vs. UOI & Ors. was also decided at the same time by the Honble High Court through judgement dated 28.04.2015 as having been rendered infructuous. In its order dated 28.04.2015 passed in CWP No. 12884 - CAT of 2013, the Honble High Court had held as follows:-

4) In para 11 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has taken notice of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.6 does not possess the rule related eligibility for appointment as Professor. In para 13, the Tribunal has again observed as follows:-

13. Dr. Poonam Goel, the applicant in OA. 1051/CH/10, raised a pure and simple challenge (to the appointment of respondent No.6 herein-applicant in OA. 369/CH/2011 on an averment that the latter was not qualified for consideration as she did not have the required expertise.

5) Thereafter, the Tribunal has by-passed the whole issue in para 32 of its order observing that the petitioner being an unsuccessful candidate, cannot challenge the appointment of a selected candidate.

6) The aforesaid reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is totally, misdirected and contrary to the settled law. Where source of recruitment to fill up the the post was promotion on consideration of the inter-se-merit of two candidates, the petitioner was well within her right to assert that respondent No.6 is ineligible or that her own merit is far superior than the selected candidate. Such a plea having been taken by the petitioner, it was imperative upon the Tribunal to decide the same on merits.

7) We are not oblivious of the fact that there are statutory rules where qualifications for the subject post are prescribed. Since we do not intend to express any views on merits lest it prejudices the case of either party, suffice it to observe that the contentions raised by the petitioner require due application of mind and appropriate adjudication. It was not a case to brush aside her plea on a hyper-technical ground.

8) The eligibility/suitability of a candidate, notwithstanding the tall claims made by the Commission whose own conduct in this matter does not appear above board, has to be and must be determined by the Tribunal with reference to the requirements under the statutory rules.

9) For the reasons aforestated, we allow this writ petition and set aside the Tribunals order to the extent of dismissal of the Original Application filed by the petitioner. Resultantly, the observations made by the Tribunal while allowing the Original Application of sixth respondent shall have no bearing and shall not be taken into consideration while adjudicating the claim of the petitioner.

2. When the matter was considered in the Tribunal thereafter on 31.07.2015, learned counsel for the parties sought and were granted time to exchange the pleadings in terms of the Honble High Courts order dated 24.08.2015.

3. In OA No. 1051/CH/2010, the applicant Dr. Poonam Goel has stated that she attained her M.B.B.S. Degree, and thereafter her M.D. (Obstetrics and Gyanecology) Degree from the PGIMER, Chandigarh, in the year 1989 and possessed more than 20 years experience after postgraduation. The applicant is the senior most Reader in the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department in GMCH-32, working as such since 25.11.2003. Respondent No. 6 is the junior of the applicant having been appointed as a Reader in the Department w.e.f. 18.07.2006 as is also evident from a perusal of the provisional gradation list dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure A-1).

4. It is stated in the OA that respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement (Annexure A-2) in December, 2009 inviting applications for making recruitment, interalia, to the post of Professor, Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the respondent College by way of Promotion/Deputation (including short term contract). The last date for the submission of the application forms was 28.02.2010. The following educational and other qualifications, experience, etc. required for the post of Professor Obstetrics and Gynaecology were advertised:-

Promotion/Deputation (including Short Term Contract) for the post of Professor:-

i. Officers of the Central/State Governments/Union Territories/Statutory Bodies/Autonomous Organizations/Research Institutions:-

a) (i) holding analogous posts on regular basis or

(ii) with two years- regular service in posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 16,400-20,000 (unrevised) or equivalent; and

b) Possessing the educational and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruits as indicated below:

ii. The Departmental Officer (GMCH Cadre) in the feeder category who are in the direct of promotion shall not be eligible for consideration for appointment on deputation. Similarly, deputationists shall not be eligible for consideration for appointment on deputation. Similarly, deputationists shall not be eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion.

Essential Qualifications:

3. Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)

(i) A basic University or equivalent qualification included in any one of the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and must be registered in a State Medical Register or Indian Medical Register.

(ii) M.D. (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)/M.S. (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) from a regcognized University/Institution or equivalent.

(iii) Ten years experience in the profession after acquiring postgraduate qualification out of which four years should be as Reader/Associate Professor in a Recognized Medical College/Teaching Institution.

This showed that to be appointed as a Professor (Obstetrics and Gyanecology), a person should possess 10 years experience after acquiring Postgraduate qualification out of which 4 years should be as a Reader in a recognized Medical College. The applicant had more than 20 years experience after acquiring postgraduate qualification out of which more than 7 years are as a Reader in the recognized Respondent College as on 28.02.2010, the last date for the submission of the application forms.

5. It is further stated that respondent No. 6 did not possess the required 4 years experience as a Reader as on 28.02.2010. Respondent No. 6 was appointed as a Reader for the first time in the respondent College itself on 18.07.2006 and possessed only 3-1/2 years experience as a Reader when she applied for the post of Professor. Both the applicant and respondent No. 6 possess the experience of two years regular service in the Grade in terms of the Advertisement and also the GMCH, Chandigarh, Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology), Reader(Obstetrics and Gynaecology) and Senior Lecturer(Obstetrics and Gynaecology), (Group A Gazetted Post) Recruitment Rules, 2002 (Annexure A-3). Perusal of these Rules reveals that recruitment to the post of Professor is by way of Promotion/Deputation (including short term contract) failing which by direct recruitment. For recruitment by any method, a person should possess the qualification of MBBS, MD (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) and 10 years experience after acquiring Postgraduate qualification out of which four years should be as a Reader in a recognized Medical College. Also, for appointment by way of promotion, a Departmental Officer should have two years regular service in the grade and this criterion is to be followed when there are outsiders also who have apply for the post in question. However, in the instant case, there were no outsiders who had applied as there were only two contenders i.e. the applicant and the respondent no. 6 for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology). These Rules have not been amended till date. Both the applicant and respondent No. 6 possess the said two years regular service in the grade as a Reader but respondent no. 6 does not possess the required four years experience as a Reader. The minimum experience required of four years as a Reader cannot be read to be only for persons appointed on deputation/contract/directly but is applicable for appointments on promotion also. The two years regular service as a Reader in the College is not equivalent to four years experience as a Reader.

6. It is also stated that the applicant submitted her application form along with her Bio-data (Annexure A-4). When the applicant reached the office of UPSC for the Personal Talk, she was shocked to know that even respondent No. 6 had been called for the Personal Talk. Later, the applicant came to know that the name of respondent no. 6 had been recommended for appointment as Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) and the Chandigarh Administration was in the process of issuing the appointment letter to respondent No. 6. Hence, this OA.

7. In the grounds for relief, it has, interalia, been stated as follows:-

(i) Respondent No. 6 does not possess the required four years experience as a Reader as on 28.02.2010 i.e. the last date of submission of the applications in terms of the advertisement. It is well settled that a person should possess the required qualifications as on the last date of submission of the application forms. Any experience acquired thereafter cannot be taken into consideration.

(ii) The applicant ranks senior to the respondent No. 6 in the seniority list. The applicant was appointed as a Reader on regular basis w.e.f. 25.11.2003 whereas the respondent No. 6 was appointed as such on 18.07.2006 i.e. after 2 years 8 months.

(iii) The applicant has an experience of 6 years and 3 months as a regular Reader whereas respondent No. 6 has experience of 3 years and 6 months only.

(iv)The applicant even has administrative experience to her credit as compared to respondent No. 6 as the applicant has also officiated as the Head of the Department from 12.11.2001 to 11.12.2003.

(v) The applicant has published 42 research papers whereas respondent No. 6 has only published 34 research papers.

(vi)Even the ACR of respondent No. 6 for the year 2009-2010 has not been recorded as respondent No. 6 has not filled the self appreciation which has to be done by the concerned employee only.

(vii)The appointment is by way of promotion and the seniority of the applicant could not have been ignored by the UPSC.

Many other grounds that appeared to have lost relevant with passage of time and further developments were also taken in this OA.

8. No reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, UOI.

9. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, UPSC, on 14.02.2011, the facts of the matter have not been disputed. It has further been stated that the Chandigarh Administration forwarded a proposal for filling one post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) in GMCH, Chandigarh, vide their letter No. 2438-FII(6)-2010 dated 07.06.2010. In response to Departments circulation/advertisement of the vacancy, two applications were received. Eligibility of the candidates had been analysed as follows:-

Sr. No.NameConsidered For

1.Dr. Poonam GoelPromotion

2.Dr. Alka SehgalPromotion





Dr. Poonam Goel and Dr. Alka Sehgal were the candidates (both feeder grade officers) who had applied for the post. After the completion of the deficiencies vide Departments letter dated 04.08.2010, a letter dated 27.10.2010 was issued intimating the date of personal talk on 24.11.2010.

10. The Selection Committee Meeting (PT) on the basis of assessment of available ACRs and bio-data of the eligible officers received in connection with the case cited above, and by holding Personal Talk with them on 24th November, 2010, recommended Dr. Alka Sehgal for appointment to the post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) in the scale of pay of Rs. 18,600-22,100 + NPA in GMCH, Chandigarh Administration on promotion basis. The recommendation was made vide letter No. F.3/32(5)/2010-ADT-1 dated November 25th, 2010. A reserve panel is not available in this case.

11. It is further stated that the Commission carefully examined the eligibility of the applicants for the post in terms of the Recruitment Rules and held them eligible for consideration by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee found only respondent No. 6 suitable. The allegation that respondent No. 6 was not eligible as she was not in possession of the required experience as per the Recruitment Rules is wrong and unfounded. As per the statutory Recruitment Rules dated 14.02.2003 numbered in the Gazette of India that was published on March 1, 2003 as G.S.R. 91 for the post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) the Col. 12 (II) states that the Departmental Officer in the Grade of Reader (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) with two years regular service in the Grade will also be considered along with outsiders and in case he/she is selected for appointment to the post, the same shall be deemed to have been filled by promotion. In Col. 9, it is provided that only educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of promotees which are covered in Col. 8 (i) & (ii). As per Col. 8 (iii), ten years experience in the profession after acquiring postgraduate qualification, out of which four years should be as Reader/Associate Professor in a Recognized Medical College/Teaching Institution is required for direct recruits. The applicants contention that respondent No. 6 is not qualified as per the provisions of Col. 8 (iii) is not correct. As per the provisions of Col. 9 of Recruitment Rules, only educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits apply for promotees. There is no mention of application of other qualifications in case of promotees as the same provision contradicts the provision of Col. 12 (II) made for promotees (feeder grade).

12. It is also stated that as per the Recruitment Rules and as per para 7 of DOP&T OM dated 03.10.1989, the post in question was to be filled by composite method, which means that both feeder grade officers as well as outside applicants from within the field source specified under the Recruitment Rules, were to be considered for filling the post. Thus, the eligibility of all applicants, whether from the feeder grade of outside, was to be considered in terms of Recruitment Rules, and their suitability was to be assessed by the Selection Committee. Merely being in the feeder grade does not confer any right of promotion on a person even if he is the lone candidate being considered. Further, if more than one candidate from the feeder grade are found eligible and considered by the Selection Committee, the senior candidate does not get any extra/additional weightage due to his/her seniority. In other words, all eligible candidates who are working in the feeder grade, are assessed on the basis of their ACRs, Bio-data and Personal Talk only, and seniority in the feeder grade is not a criteria for selection or for deciding the position in the recommended list (if more than one candidate is found suitable).

13. As regards the contention that the applicant was more suitable on the ground of experience, qualification, more publications etc., it is stated that after the applicant and the respondent No. 6 had been found eligible as per the Recruitment Rules, their suitability for the post was assessed by a High Powered Selection Committee on the basis of the guidelines evolved by the Commission in this regard. On the basis of the performance of the two candidates in the Personal Talk and after assessment of their ACRs & Bio-data, the Committee found only the respondent No. 6 fit for appointment by selection on promotion basis. As per the Commissions guidelines, the selection is made on the basis of ACRs, bio-data and personal talk and the maximum marks are 200 with break-up as under:-

ACR - 25% weightage or 50 marks

Bio-Data - 25% weightage or 50 marks

PT - 50% weightage or 100 marks

The qualifying standard in such SCM (PT)s will be a minimum of overall 50% or 100 marks (with 50% or more in the P.T). The Commission has been uniformly following these guidelines for all selection committee meetings.

14. It is further stated that the Honble Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 12.02.2007 in the Appeal (Civil) No. 689/2007 arising out of SLP No. 2410/2007 in the matter of UOI & Anr. Vs. S.K. Goel & Ors., has held that The DPC enjoy full discretion to devise its method and procedure for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the candidates being considered by it. Hence, the interference by the High Court is not called for. The Bench has also noted that the DPC is not required to be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but to make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. It is also now more or less well settled that the evaluation made by an Expert Committee should not be easily interfered with by the Courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that it is necessary for such purpose.

15. It is also stated that it is not within the province of the Honble Tribunal to sit in judgement over the assessment of the DPC/Selection Committee save in the rarest of rare cases where findings of the DPC/Selection Committee may be tainted with malice. In the case of Nutan Arvind Vs. UOI & Another, 1996 (2) SCC 488 , Honble Supreme Court held that where a high level Committee had considered the respective merits of the candidates, assessed the grading and considered their cases for promotion, this Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the DPC as an appellate authority. UPSC Vs. H.L. Dev & Ors. , AIR 1988 SC 1069 , Dalpat Absaheb Solanke Vs. B.S. Mahajan, AIR 1990 SC 484 and Anil Katiyar Vs. UOI & Ors., 1997(1) SLR, 153 have also been cited to buttress the contentions of the respondent No. 2.

16. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 5 on behalf of respondents No. 3-5 on 14.02.2011, it is stated that as per the Recruitment Rules (Annexure A-2), every candidate who has completed two years of regular service as Reader and has more than ten years of post MD experience, is eligible to be considered for promotion as Professor. Once a candidate fulfils this criteria, he/she is at par with other candidates who might have more experience post MD as well as regular service as Reader. The respondent No. 6 as well as the applicant were eligible to be considered for the promotion to the post of Professor. The applicant has not challenged the RRs and without challenging the same, her OA is not maintainable. It is nobodys case that the applicant is ineligible to be considered for the post of Professor. It is due to this reason that the applicant was called for the interview and was considered. However, her name was not recommended for the appointment to the post of Professor by the UPSC, respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 6 was having more than ten years post MD experience of and she was working in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology as Reader with over two years regular service in the grade. Hence as per the RRs, she was eligible to apply for the post of Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. She also applied and the respondent No. 2 considered her along with the applicant and recommended selection of respondent No.6.

17. Short reply was filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 wherein preliminary objection was taken that the applicant had not even placed on record either the selection letter or minutes of selection or any proof of selection of respondent No. 6 to the said post. Without placing on record any such document, how could a prayer for quashing a document be made. Thus, the present OA was not maintainable. The age old settled proposition of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in a plethora of judgements is to the effect that an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge the selection process after having participated and submitting herself to the terms thereof. The applicant herein had duly participated in the selection process for the post of Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and after having been declared unsuccessful, the applicant cannot challenge the selection process. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this score as well. It is a settled proposition of law to the effect that selection to a post pertaining to a super specialty subjects is best left to be considered by the committee of experts known as selection committee who are well versed, equipped and trained in identification of the best candidate for selection. The Courts are not the expert bodies who are either trained or equipped in identifying the best candidate for appointment to the post in a super specialty subject. Also, courts shall not sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee.

18. It is further stated that the experience requirement for promotion to the post of Professor is four years as a Reader on 28.02.2010. This is factually incorrect and nothing but misinterpretation of Rules. Four years of experience for the post of Reader is required in case of filling the post by Direct Recruitment or Deputation and not by Promotion. For filling the post by Promotion, the required experience is not four years as Reader but two years as Reader. Even the advertisement mentions the same criteria as per Rules. Thus, the very contention of the applicant that respondent No. 6 is ineligible as she does not have four years experience as Reader is totally unsustainable and a deliberate attempt has been made to mislead this Court by misinterpreting the Recruitment Rules.

19. Further, in pursuance to the advertisement issued in December, 2009, the cut-off date is 28.02.2010 i.e. last date of submission of the application. As on the said date i.e. 28.02.2010, ACRs of previous 5 years are required to be seen i.e. from 2004-05 till 2008-09. Thus, the ACR of the year 2009-10 is not even within the zone of consideration. Thus the contention of the applicant deserves to be rejected outrightly.

20. Applicant filed rejoinder to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, UPSC, asserting again that respondent No. 6 was not eligible as per the RRs for the post of Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in GMCH.

21. Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant separately to the written statements filed on behalf of respondents No. 3-5 and respondent No. 6.

22. After the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, MA No. 060/01072/2015 was filed on behalf of the applicant for placing on record additional pleas/facts and grounds. It was stated therein that the UPSC in para No.7 of page 88 of their reply have taken the stand that it makes selection for filling up various posts under the Govt. of India in terms of the Recruitment Rules of the post and the relevant instructions of Govt. of India. While promoting the respondent No.6 the UPSC has completely ignored the DOP&T O.M. dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure MA-1) read with UPSC Guidelines dated 09.01.1998 and dated 09.07.1998 in which DOP&T clearly mentions that DPC may ensure that for the promotion to the scale of Rs. 18,400-22,400 and above, the prescribed benchmark of Very Good is invariably met in all ACRs of five years but respondent No. 6 did not possess Very Good Benchmark for the relevant five years as respondent No. 6 had only 3 Very Good and 2 Good assessments whereas applicant had 3 Outstanding and 2 Very Good entries. The ACR record (Annexure MA-2 Relevant extract of ACR record) of eligible persons sent by the department to the UPSC for consideration and promotion to the post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) i.e. of applicant and respondent No.6 affirms this fact. In the DOP&T O.M. dated 18.02.2008 it is clearly mentioned that the DPC in terms of guidelines of DOP&T is required to make its own assessment on the basis of entries in the CRs and not be guided merely by the overall grading. Applicant sought information under RTI Act, 2005 vide letter dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure MA-3) whether the DPC made its own assessment while considering the respondents No.6 for promotion to the post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) i.e to check whether any ACR of respondent No.6 was upgraded by them. Applicant received the information vide letter dated 14.02.2012 (Annexure MA-4) and that information clearly reveals that ACRs of neither of the candidates i.e applicant or respondent No.6 had been upgraded by the DPC while considering the case for promotion as Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology).

23. Reply on behalf of respondents 3-5 to MA No. 060/01072/2015 was filed on 28.01.2016. The points taken in the written statement filed initially on behalf of respondents No. 3-5 were reiterated and it was asserted that respondent No. 6 was eligible for the post of Professor.

24. On behalf of UPSC, reply to MA No. 060/01072/2015 was filed on 24.02.2016 and it was stated that as per Column 12 (II) of the Schedule of the Statutory Recruitment Rules dated 14.02.2003, for recruitment to the post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology), Departmental Officer in the Grade of Reader (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) with two years regular service in the grade will also be considered alongwith outsiders and in case he/she is selected for appointment to the post, the same shall be deemed to have been filled by promotion. In column 9 of the said Schedule, it is provided that educational qualifications {which are mentioned under Column No. 8 (i) & 8 (ii)} prescribed for direct recruits will apply in case of promotees. As per column No. 8 (iii), 10 years experience in the profession after acquiring Post Graduate qualification, out of which four years should be as a Reader/Associate Professor in a recognized Medical College/teaching institution, is required for direct recruits/outsiders. The applicants contention that respondent No. 6 is not qualified as per provision of column No. 8 (iii) is not correct. As per the provisions of column No. 9 of Recruitment Rules, only educational qualifications provided for direct recruit apply for promotees. There is no mention of application of other qualifications in case of promotees as the same provision contradicts the provision of column 12 (II) made for promotees (feeder grade). After the applicant and respondent No. 6 were found eligible as per Recruitment Rules to be called for Personal Talk, their suitability for the post was assessed by a Selection Committee on the basis of guidelines evolved by the Commission in this regard. On the basis of performance in the Personal Talk and after assessment of ACRs and bio-data, the Committee recommended respondent No. 6 for appointment to the post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology). Since a departmental officer was recommended for appointment to the post, the appointment was deemed to have been by promotion as per the Recruitment Rules.

25. It is further stated that the applicants contention that the Commission had completely ignored the DOPT OM dated 18.02.2008 is misleading. This OM is related to DPC guidelines prescribing benchmark for promotion at the level of JS and above. However, the instant case is one of selection by promotion/deputation (ISTC) also known as composite method, as provided under column No. 11 of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules to the post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology). Filling up a post on promotion/deputation (ISTC) or composite method, is governed by the DOPT OM dated 03.10.1989 and not by DOPT OM dated 18.02.2008. As per paragraph 7.1 of OM dated 03.10.1989, where the field of promotion consists of only one post, the method of recruitment by transfer on deputation (ISTC)/promotion is prescribed so that the Departmental Officer is considered alongwith outsiders. If the Departmental Officer is selected for the appointment to the post, it is treated as having been filled up by promotion; otherwise, the post is filled up by deputation (ISTC) basis. As per the column No. 11 of Schedule to the RRs, the post in question was to be filled up by promotion/deputation (ISTC) which means that both feeder grade officers as well as outside applicants from within the field source specified under the Recruitment Rules were to be considered. Thus, the eligibility of all applicants, whether from feeder grade or outside, is considered in terms of Recruitment Rules and their suitability is assessed by the Selection Committee. Merely being in the feeder grade does not confer any right of promotion upon a person even if a lone candidate is being considered. Further, if more than one candidate from feeder grade is found eligible and considered by the Selection Committee, the senior candidate does not get any extra/additional weightage due to his/her higher seniority.

26. It is further stated that in the Composite Method of Selection i.e. Promotion/Deputation, the field of selection comprises departmental candidates who fulfill the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the RRs as well as candidates from other field source as prescribed in the RRs, like other Central Departments, State Governments, PSUs, Autonomous Organizations, etc. All the eligible candidates are assessed on the basis of ACRs, bio-data and Personal Talk without any discrimination among them on the basis of field/source. A panel is drawn on the basis of combined marks in these three components with a mandatory requirement of 50% of marks in the Personal Talk. This process of selection is very different from promotion cases where Benchmark of Good or Very Good grading in the ACRs are prescribed for recommending the officers fit for promotion. The Composite Method of selection process provides a level playing field to all so that candidates from both categories i.e. departmental and outsiders have equal chance of selection. Therefore, it is misleading on the part of the applicant to say that the Commission has ignored the guidelines of 18.02.2008 that prescribed Very Good Benchmark.

27. It is also stated that as per column No. 13 of the Schedule of the Recruitment Rules to the post of Professor (Obstetrics and Gynaecology), the composition of the DPC is as under:-

Group A Departmental Promotion Committee (For considering Confirmation)

.0000 (1)Home Secretary Chandigarh AdministrationChairman

(2)Secretary, Medical Education And Research, Chandigarh AdministrationMember

(3)Principal, Government Medical College and Hospital, ChandigarhMember





From above, it is crystal clear that the DPC has been prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for consideration of confirmation of Group A direct recruits and is to be constituted by the Department itself. Nowhere in the Recruitment Rules is consultation with the Commission provided for the purpose of the DPC for selection to the post. As per Commissions guidelines, selection is made on the basis of assessment of ACRs, bio-data and by holding Personal Talk. The Commission has been uniformly following the guidelines for all Selection Committee Meetings. The applicant has not been able to place on record any new facts as claimed. These have already been refuted by this respondent vide paragraphs No. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the reply in OA No. 1051/CH/2010. The Tribunal, by considering all aspects of the case, had already dismissed the OA vide order dated 19.10.2012. Accordingly, it is prayed that MA may be dismissed as being misleading and devoid of merits so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned.

28. Another document dated 04.05.2016 was filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 trying to clarify the allegations made in the OA, incident related to Dr. Gurjeet Kaur and some other persons and stating that as per the information gathered under RTI Act, at least 4 other candidates in different departments had been called for interview for posts of Professors in various Departments of GMCH following the rule of requirement of two years experience as Reader for deemed promotion. It is stated that some have been promoted after just two years of experience/service as Readers (Annexure R-6/F). It was pointed out that in the case of promotions for posts of Professors of Surgery and Orthopedics and Pediatrics, there were only internal candidates who had applied for the posts, a situation similar to that in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. In so far as the Annual Confidential Reports are concerned, the UPSC has already stated in their reply that in case of the promotions/deputations, the UPSC guidelines are followed wherein Marks for ACR are give as per the assessment/grading and no benchmark concept is applied on the Deputation and composite (Promotion/Deputation) methods of selection to the concerned posts. The same has also been replied to by UPSC, New Delhi under RTI Act vide letter dated 14.02.2012 to Dr. Poonam Goel who has attached the letter with the recent MA (Annexure MA-4) and is trying to mislead the Court in the matter. Further, the guidelines of the marks for the ACR are being followed since long in GMCH. This is clear from the information obtained under RTI Act for at least three doctors promoted to Professors i.e. Dr. A.K. Attri for Professor of Surgery, Dr. Jasbinder Kaur for Professor of Biochemistry and Dr. Rajeev Sharma, Professor of Surgery, that shows that their ACRs were also good (Annexure R-6/G). The UPSC in their replies in the Tribunal as well as in the High Court have submitted clearly the guidelines being followed for cases of promotion/composite recruitments. This is also very clearly stated in the RTI reply attached by the applicant Dr. Poonam Goel who is now using this reply to mislead the court.

29. MA No. 060/00875/2016 was filed on 20.07.2016 on behalf of the applicant for placing on record rebuttal to replies to MA No. 060/01072/2015 filed separately by respondents No. 2, 3-5 & 6. Subsequent advertisement issued by the UPSC itself for the selection of Professors in the GMCH was referred to wherein as per the advertisement itself, the criteria of four years experience as Reader had been prescribed. Specific reference has been made to Public Appointment Notice for the post of Professor (Orthopaedics) where the essential qualifications were indicated as follows:-

(i) A basic University or equivalent qualification included in any of the Schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) and must be registered in a State Medical Register or Indian Medical Register.

(ii) M.S. (Orthopaedics) from a recognized University/Institution or equivalent.

(iii) Ten years experience in the profession after acquiring postgraduate qualification out of which four years should be as Reader/Associate Professor in a recognized Medical College/Teaching Institution.

30. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard. Sh. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Sh. Rohit Seth, learned counsel for the applicant narrated the background of the matter at length. He stated that the eligibility criteria for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), GMCH, Chandigarh, required that for direct recruits, the essential qualification and other qualifications were as follows:-

(i) M.D. (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)/MS (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) from a recognized University/Institution or equivalent.

(ii) Ten years experience in the profession after acquiring postgraduate qualification, out of which four years should be as Reader/Associate Professor in a Recognized Medical College/Teaching Institution.

In the case of recruitment by promotion/deputation/absorption, grades from which promotion/deputation/absorption to be made were as follows:-

Officers of the Central/State Governments/UTs/Statutory Bodies/Autonomous Organizations/Research Institutions:-

(a) (i) holding analogous posts on regular basis

or

(ii) with two years regular service in posts in the scale of pay of Rs. 16400-20000 or equivalent and

(b) possessing the educational and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruits under column (8).

From this, it was clear that the essential qualifications prescribed for persons in this category were the same as the qualifications prescribed for direct recruits under column 8 of the Rules. However, respondent No. 6 on the last date of filing of applications for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), did not complete the requirement of four years service as Reader/Associate Professor in a recognized Medical College/teaching institution while the applicant did indeed fulfil this qualification. The applicant was the senior-most Reader in the Department. The UPSC was bound by its own instructions regarding determination of suitability of a candidate and holding of DPCs for the persons to be promoted in the scale of Rs. 18600-22100 (revised pay scale Rs. 37400-67000 +Grade Pay of Rs. 10000). The requirement was that all ACRs should be Very Good. While the applicant had for the relevant years that were to be considered by the DPC, three OS entries and two VGs the respondent No. 6 had only three VGs and two Gs. Hence, on both counts, regarding fulfillment of essential experience qualification and grading in the ACRs, the respondent No. 6 was ineligible to be considered by the UPSC for promotion as Professor. Learned counsel also mentioned that although the composite method of recruitment was prescribed for the post of Professor, i.e. persons to be selected could be those who applied as direct recruits, as deputationists, as contract appointees or as promotees from the GMCH, respondent No., 5 in response to the advertisement issued in December, 2009, while the names of applicant and respondent No. 6 were sent to the UPSC by Chandigarh Administration, only these two persons were considered eligible by the UPSC for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology). The learned counsel also stated that although much was being stated that under Column 12 of the Rules in point (ii), it was stated that the Departmental Officer in the grade of Reader (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) with two years regular service in the grade will also be considered alongwith outsiders and in case he/she is selected for appointment to the post, the same shall be deemed to have been filled by promotion and that respondent No. 6 was eligible for the post of Professor in view of the requirement of two years regular service as Reader only, this condition was fulfilled by respondent No. 6 and hence selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) in the GMCH was in order, but the fact remained that since the only candidates considered by the UPSC for this post were internal candidates from GMCH, this selection had to be treated as Promotion and not Deemed Promotion. For promotion, 1(b) in Column 12 applied and a person to be eligible for the same had to fulfil the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment under Column 8, viz. 10 years experience in the profession after acquiring postgraduate qualification of which 4 years should be as Reader/Associate Professor in a recognized medical college/teaching institution.

31. Learned counsel further stated that at the time when the selection was made for the post of Professor, there were several complaints against respondent No. 6. Hence, even after her name was recommended by the UPSC for the post of Professor, her appointment was delayed and it was perhaps only on the intervention of the Tribunal/Honble High Court that final promotion order of the respondent No. 6 as Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) was issued.

32. Sh. Ram Lal Gupta, learned Sr. CGSC for respondent No. 1 stated that he would be adopting the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the UPSC.

33. Sh. B.B. Sharma, learned counsel for the UPSC reiterated the content of the written statement filed on behalf of the UPSC in response to this OA. He did refer to the subsequent reply filed on 24.02.2016 with MA No. 060/01702/2015 but could not explain why mention had been made in this document that there was no requirement to consult with the UPSC in the matter of appointment of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) in the GMCH. He also stated that the applicable circular in accordance with which the DPC was held and the two applicants for the post of Professor were assessed, was the OM dated 03.10.1989 and not that dated 18.02.2008. Para 7.1 of OM dated 03.10.1989 was relevant to the matter and the UPSC had proceeded accordingly. He also explained how in the view of UPSC, respondent No. 6 was eligible for the post of Professor.

34. Sh. Moudgil, learned counsel for respondents No. 3-5 also reiterated the content of the written statement filed initially and the additional reply filed after the matter was remanded by the Honble High Court. He also took the stand that interpretation of the entries in column 12 of the RRs was the crux of the case and insisted that under point (ii), the respondent No. 6, having more than two years regular service as Reader, was eligible to be considered for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology). Learned counsel also stated that entry 1(b) in Column 12 was delinked and was not related to point (ii) since recruitment was to be made by composite method and was a deemed promotion in the case of respondent No. 6 for which the condition 1(b) in Column 12 of possessing the educational and other qualifications as prescribed for direct recruits under Column 8 of the Rules, i.e. four years experience as Reader/Associate Professor in a recognized Medical College was not relevant.

35. Sh. R.S. Bains, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 also referred to the background of the whole matter. He stated that many appointments of Professors made in the GMCH on the basis of two years experience as Reader had been cited in an application filed on behalf of respondent No. 6 and the applicant having more than two years service as Reader at the time when applications were invited for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) was fully eligible to be considered for the post of Professor. He also asserted that this was a deemed promotion as composite method of recruitment was being followed and hence point (ii) was applicable and not 1(b) of the entries in the Column 12 of the RRs for the post. He also stated that in view of the OM of 1989, the applicant fulfilled the qualifications and was eligible for selection as Associate Professor as per her ACR records. It was UPSC Selection Committee that had to decide the suitability of the candidates considered and it was not the role of the Tribunal to make such assessment over again or to sit in judgement over the recommendations of the UPSC.

36. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the content of the OM dated 03.10.1989. The subject of the OM was Procedure to be followed in cases where appointment is to be made by transfer on deputation/transfer basis consolidated instructions on, there was no mention of Promotion in this OM. Moreover, although the UPSC had stated that the eligibility of the candidates for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) was considered in accordance with para 7.1 of this OM, again, this para related to eligibility of departmental officers for appointment by deputation. In the present case, the appointment took place by way of promotion and hence, respondent No. 6 not fulfilling four years criteria as Reader for appointment as Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) and hence was ineligible for this post. On the other hand, it was OM dated 18.02.2008 that was relevant for consideration for the promotion of the two candidates called for Personal Talk i.e. the applicant and respondent No. 6, as Professor. In view of the fact that there was no outsider candidates and benchmark for promotion to the post at which level Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) is, was Very Good. Out of the five ACRs relevant for consideration, the ACRs for two years were graded as Good and hence, respondent No. 6 would not make the grade. He again asserted that this was a case of Promotion and not Deemed Promotion.

37. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the parties filed initially, as well as the MAs and replies to the same filed by the parties after the matter was remanded by the High Court to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

38. The RRs for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) have been seen carefully with reference to the entries under Column 8 and Column 12 of the Rules. The entry at 1(b) viz.possessing the education and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruits under Column 8 definitely refers to eligibility criteria for persons considered for appointment as Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) through the route of promotion/deputation or short term contract. Point (ii) refers to the consideration of an internal candidate with two years regular service in the grade of Reader being considered alongwith outsiders and in case of such a candidate being selected for appointment to the post, the appointment would be deemed to have been made by promotion. Besides, the departmental officers in the feeder category who are in the direct line of promotion, shall not be eligible for consideration for appointment on deputation. Similarly, the deputationists would not be eligible for consideration for appointment by promotion.

39. In the present case, there was no outsider candidate and hence, the provision regarding deemed promotion appears to have been misapplied by the Chandigarh Administration as well as the UPSC. The persons to be considered for appointment on promotion in the composite method when there were no outsider eligible candidates who applied in response to the advertisement issued by UPSC, were required to possess the educational and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruits under Column 8 i.e. four years as Reader/Associate Professors in a recognized medical college. Respondent No. 6 did not possess the requisite experience on the last date for filing application for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology).

40. Even, regarding assessment by the DPC, the OM dated 03.10.1989 has incorrectly been applied by the UPSC as this does not refer to promotion at all, but refers to appointment through deputation/transfer. Since we have concluded that in this particular case, there being no outsider candidate and only two insider candidates were being considered by the UPSC for promotion as Professor and since the scale of the post of Professor is Rs. 18,600-22,100 (Unrevised) + N.P.A. as per Annexure R-1 (Page 258 of paper book) of 2nd reply filed by UPSC, it is the OM dated 18.02.2008 that is applicable to the matter. The respondent No. 6 did not meet the benchmark of Very Good required for such promotions and hence, was wrongly considered eligible/suitable for the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology).

41. In view of the discussion above regarding eligibility, we do not consider it necessary to go into the aspect of assessment of suitability of the candidates by the SCM held on 24.11.2010. Also, the contention on behalf of respondent No. 6 that some other persons have been promoted as Professors in GMCH having less than four years experience as Reader, does not need consideration as the appointments of these persons are not under challenger here. Moreover, a wrong precedent cannot be cited for interpretation of the RRs in a particular manner.

42. So far as the claim of the applicant in the OA to promote her to the post of Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), GMCH is concerned, it is seen that the UPSC recommended only one person i.e. Dr. Alka Sehgal , respondent No. 6 for selection and there was no waiting list, hence, the claim of the applicant for appointment to the post in view of the ineligibility of respondent No. 6 cannot be considered.

43. We conclude the matter by holding that the selection and further appointment of respondent No. 6 as Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) by the UPSC on the basis of advertisement (Annexure A-2) has to be set aside as the selected candidate did not fulfil the eligibility criteria for the post. Hence, the relief sought vide para 8(i) in the OA is allowed while 8(ii) is rejected. The respondents may take further consequential action in this regard. OA is disposed of accordingly. No costs.