Supreme Court of India
MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus DR. BHANUMATI PURUSHOTTAM TATHOD AND ORS.
- Decided
- 21 April 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 878 · 1997 INSC 416
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Though notice was served on the contesting respondent, he is not appearing either in perscn or through counsel.
p. 878, margin F
Leave granted. We have learned counsel for the appellant.
p. 878, margin F
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 Tribunal in the impugned order dated October 24, 1996 in O.A. No. 954/97 has held that the condition of 15 years experience is vague and, therefore, 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 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 wrongfully excluded from being called for interview for selection. It is not a case 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.
pp. 878–879, margin G
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal stands set aside. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 879, margin C