Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) The Chandigarh Administration is before us in the present writ petition wherein the challenge is to the order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter be referred as CAT) Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh whereby CAT has set aside the selection to the post of Pharmacists under the Health Department, Chandigarh Administration and has further directed to make appointments to such posts on the basis of a merit list to be prepared afresh.
(2.) Facts in brief may be noticed. An advertisement dated 30.11.2008 was issued by the Chandigarh Administration, Health Department inviting applications for filling up the posts of Pharmacists (Group - C ) in the pay scale of Rs. 4,550-7,220/- (two posts were to be filled up from the General Category and one post from the OBC Category). The requisite qualification and experience for the post was mentioned in the advertisement and the same read as follows: "Qualification and Experience:- 1. 10+2 Medical or pre-Medical with one year Diploma in Pharmacy and Dressers Course from recognised institute. OR i) Matric with Physics and Chemistry ii) Two years Diploma in Pharmacy and Dresser course from recognised institute or its equivalent. 2. Registered as Pharmacist with U.T., Chandigarh Pharmacy Council. 3. The practical training shall not be less than 500 hrs. spread over period of not less than 3 months provided that not less than 250 hrs. are devoted to actual dispensing of prescription." It is noticed that as many as 99 applications were received in the General Category and 19 applications were received in the OBC Category. After scrutiny, a total of 45 applications were assessed to be eligible and finally 41 candidates ultimately appeared before the Interview Committee on 15.06.2009. Respondent No.3 was duly selected and appointed on the post of Pharmacist(General Category) in July, 2009. Respondent No.2 thereafter sought information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and upon such information having been supplied to him, he became aware that he had been awarded a total of 56.06 marks in the final process of selection whereas respondent No.3, who was selected and duly appointed, was awarded a total of 58.38 marks. Respondent No.2 was also informed that the selected candidate i.e. respondent No.3 had been awarded marks towards experience. In the light of such information, respondent No.2 filed OA No.652/CH/2009 impugning the selection process primarily on the ground that the marks awarded to respondent No.3 i.e. selected candidate towards experience was not permissible as the same had not been stipulated in the advertisement.
(3.) Upon consideration of the entire matter, CAT had set aside the selection holding that the relevant merits of different candidates should not have been arrived at by giving any weightage towards experience. Accordingly, directions had been issued in the impugned order dated 22.02.2011 to prepare a fresh merit list by ignoring the marks obtained by any candidate for experience and to effect appointments thereafter on the basis of such fresh merit list.;