The court cannot substitute its view of the qualification requirements prescribed by the organization when posting vacancies : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that the courts cannot substitute their view of the qualification requirements prescribed by an organization when posting vacancies for a position.

A dividing bench of Judge Sanjeev Sachdeva and Judge Tushar Rao Gedela observed:

“It is open to an organization, when advertising its vacancies, to prescribe the qualifications which, in the opinion of the Organization, may be suitable for appointment to such post. Courts cannot substitute its opinion for the requirements prescribed by the organization.”

The bench thus rejected a plea filed by a Priyanka Agarwal, who had applied for a position as a medical physicist at the city’s Safdarjung Hospital under the non-reserved category, challenging an order issued by the Central Administrative Court rejecting her original application.

The essential educational qualification, according to the vacancy announcement, was that the candidate should have a graduate degree in physics as well as a post-master’s degree. Degree in radiological or medical physics. There was also an additional requirement in the advertisement that a candidate must have completed a minimum of 12 months’ internship in a well-equipped and recognized radiotherapy department.

However, the petitioner had not completed the required traineeship of at least 12 months.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that for graduation, prior to 2012, there was no requirement for a one-year internship. It was also argued that the said requirement was only introduced after 2012. Counsel for the applicant therefore argued that the one-year probation was not required.

Rejecting the claim, the bench said:

“We cannot accept this claim on the grounds that the announcement, in addition to prescribing a title of study of a graduate degree and a post-master’s degree, also requires an internship of a minimum of 12 months in a well-equipped and recognized radiology facility. Department of therapy, which the petitioner admittedly does not possess.”

The plea was dismissed, noting that Agarwal did not meet the required essential qualification and therefore was not qualified for the position.

“As stated above, since the Petitioner does not meet the prescribed educational qualification, we find no infirmity in the Tribunal’s order dismissing the Petitioner’s original claim. The petition is therefore without merit and is dismissed”, ordered the court.


Click here to read the order

Virginia S. Braud