Dismissed

Dr Masroor Ali Qureshi v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC27 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/13226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the non-selection of the petitioner for a post due to his age. The Court found that the petitioner's candidature was duly considered and rejected as he exceeded the statutory age limit of 45 years, which was not discretionary in this instance.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed with a direction that the petitioner may challenge the appointment of the selected candidate in a separate petition.

Dr Masroor Ali Qureshi Vs Union of India & Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 13226/2024 & CM APPLs. 55183-84/2024

¶4

DR MASROOR ALI QURESHI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Atul Nagarajan, Mr. Surjeet Singh Malhotra, Mr. Niyas Valiyathodi, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Advocate, Md. Nadeem, Under Secretary, Ms. Mompi Dey, Legal Consultant for R-1 Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. Shadman Ali, Advocates for R-3

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R % 27.09.2024

¶11

At the outset, counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, states that the original challenge to the appointment of Respondent No. 3, as raised in the writ petition through the impugned order dated 11^th September, 2024, is no being longer pursued. Instead, the Petitioner narrows his grievance solely to the non-consideration of his candidature. This statement is duly recorded, and the petition shall now be treated as confined to this limited aspect. 2. The Petitioner, Dr. Masroor Ali Qureshi, is a Group A Service Officer with Level 13 in the pay matrix since 2011. He currently serves as a Senior Scientist in the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine (CCRUM) under the Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. He previously served

¶12

W.P.(C) 13226/2024 Page 1 of 6

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 12:30:56

¶14

as Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Administration) in the Haj Committee of India¹ in the year 2022. He asserts that he has an unblemished service record with Outstanding/Very Good APAR rating in the last 5 years of his service. He further claims to be the most qualified and dedicated candidate, for the post in question, holding a Ph.D. in Biotechnology from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.

¶15

The Petitioner applied for the post of Chief Executive Officer of HCoI in response to an advertisement issued by Respondent No. 1 dated 26^th June, 2024. The eligibility criteria for the post, as stated in the advertisement, are as follows:

¶16

“3. The eligibility criteria for the post is as under.

¶17

I. OUALIFICATION

¶18

A. The candidate should be a Muslim and proficient in English and Hindi/Urdu.

¶19

B. Knowledge of other Indian languages and Arabic is desirable.

¶20

C. Previous knowledge/experience about Haj is desirable.

¶21

II. EXPERIENCE

¶22

A. Officers holding posts not below the rank of Deputy Secretary in the Central Government or equivalent rank in State Governments are eligible for the post.

¶23

B. The Officer should have completed 9 years of Group 'A' service.

¶24

C. Officers in the higher pay scale in their parent cadre can also apply.

¶25

III. AGE

¶26

The applicant should not be above the age of 45 years. Relaxation in age may be considered for suitable experienced officers by the Competent Authority.

¶27

A. Pay fixation would be as per the rank of Deputy Secretary/ Director. However, if the pay fixation of the officer posted on deputation to the Haj Committee of India, happens to be lower than the pay the officer would have been entitled to, had they been in their parent cadre and would have drawn that pay but for deputation to HCoI, such difference in the pay shall be protected in the form of Personal Pay.

¶28

B. DA, CCA, HRA etc. shall' be as admissible to Central Government

¶29

1 “HCoI”

¶30

W.P.(C) 13226/2024 Page 2 of 6

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 12:30:56

¶33

Officers of the rank of Deputy Secretary/ Director stationed in Mumbai.

¶34

C. The officer on deputation is entitled to draw deputation allowance as per rules applicable.”

¶35

The Petitioner concedes that he is over the age of 45. However, he argues that since the eligibility criteria includes a provision for age relaxation for suitably experienced officers, his candidature ought to have been, at the very least, considered by Respondent No. 1.

¶36

During the previous hearing, Mr. Atul Nagarajan, counsel for the Petitioner, clarified that the present petition is not a writ of quo warranto but rather a grievance concerning the non-consideration of the Petitioner’s candidature. In view of this, the Court had directed Respondent No. 1 to produce the relevant records to verify whether the Petitioner’s candidature was duly considered.

¶37

In this regard, copies of the note sheets in relation to the selection process has been submitted to the Court for perusal. Although the counsel for the Petitioner has reviewed the document, a copy has not been provided to him. The notings in this document clearly indicate that the Petitioner’s candidature was indeed considered. The relevant references are as follows:

¶38

“1. This is regarding selection of Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Haj Committee of India (HCoI).”

¶39

2. The application for the post of CEO, HCoI, was invited vide OM dated 26^th June, 2024, with the last date to submit applications through the proper channel being 26^th July, 2024. In response, a total of 8 applications were received. Among these, 3 applications were submitted through the proper channel, 4 were advance copies (not through the proper channel) and 1 was a covering letter received without any application. The summary is as follows:

¶40

Sr.	Name of the	Present	Present	Age/DOB	Eligible/not	Remarks
No.	Applicant	Designation	Pay Level		Eligible

¶41

W.P.(C) 13226/2024 Page 3 of 6

¶42

¶43

1.	Dr. Masroor Ali Qureshi	RO-Scientist	13	56 yrs 01.09.1967	Not eligible due to over age	Received through proper channel
2.	Dr. Ubed Ahmed Khan	Veterinary Officer	12	53 yrs 06.06.1971	Not eligible due to over age	Received through proper channel
3.	Mr. Sayed Qamar Sajjad	Additional District Developmen t Commission er	13	54 yrs 28.09.1969	Not eligible due to over age	Received through proper channel
4.	Mr. Md Manzarul Hasan	Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer	14	48 yrs 04.07.1975	Not eligible due to over age	Only advance copy received
5.	Mr. Saddik Ahmed	Joint Commission er of Income Tax	12	44 yrs 28.12.1979	Eligible	Only advance copy received
6.	Mr. S Shafiyullah	Sr. Senior Scientific Officer I	12	45 yrs 29.04.1979	Eligible	Only advance copy received
7.	Mr. Shaik Nur Mohammed	Joint Director (Systems)	12	53 yrs 24.11.1970	Not eligible due to over age	Only advance copy received
8.	Mr. Neyaz Ahmed	Dy. Comdt.	-	-	-	Only covering letter received from the cadre office”

¶44

It is, therefore, evident that Dr. Masroor Ali Qureshi’s candidature was duly considered; however, he was found ineligible on the ground of being 57 years of age, which is well beyond the stipulated upper limit of 45

¶45

W.P.(C) 13226/2024 Page 4 of 6

¶46

This is a digitally signed order.

¶47

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 12:30:56

¶48

years. In fact, several other candidates met the same fate; their applications were similarly not processed further as they, too, exceeded the prescribed age criteria. As a result, the Petitioner, along with others who were over the specified age limit, were not called for an interview on account of being overage.

¶49

It is important to note that the age criteria is expressly stated within the eligibility requirements for the post, with 45 years being the upper age limit. Although the eligibility criteria allow for relaxation, such relaxation is clearly within the discretionary power of the Competent Authority. The decision not to exercise this discretion in the Petitioner’s favour does not indicate any arbitrary or unreasonable action on the part of Respondent No.1. The Petitioner has not provided any evidence suggesting that Respondent No.1 acted beyond its authority or in a manner contrary to established norms.

¶50

Furthermore, the discretion to relax the age limit is to be exercised only in cases where the Competent Authority deems an officer’s experience to be exceptionally suitable for the post. The mere existence of the relaxation provision does not automatically entitle every overage candidate to be considered. In this instance, Respondent No.1’s decision to adhere strictly to the age limit reflects a consistent application of the selection criteria to all candidates, including the Petitioner.

¶51

The Court must also respect the autonomy of the selection process, particularly where eligibility criteria have been pre-defined and made public. Judicial intervention in the administrative decision-making process is warranted only in cases of manifest illegality or mala fide intent. Here, Respondent No.1’s actions appear to be a straightforward application of the

¶52

W.P.(C) 13226/2024 Page 5 of 6

¶53

¶54

rules, leaving no grounds for the Court to interfere with the selection process.

¶55

In light of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the Petitioner’s candidature was duly considered but not processed further for the reasons already discussed. Accordingly, the limited prayer of the Petitioner, as recorded in the opening paragraph of this order, stands addressed, and no further directions are deemed necessary. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶56

In case, the Petitioner intends to challenge the appointment of Respondent No. 3, he is free to do so, if so advised, in accordance with law. The Court has not commented on the maintainability of such a petition. 13. Disposed of alongwith pending applications.

¶57

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶58

SEPTEMBER 27, 2024 ab

¶59

W.P.(C) 13226/2024 Page 6 of 6

¶60

This is a digitally signed order.

¶61

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/10/2024 at 12:30:56

Dr Masroor Ali Qureshi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Masroor Ali Qureshi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dsssb and Anr. Vs Dinesh Mahawar

Chandra Global Finance Ltd. Vs Ito Ward 6(1) New Delhi & Anr.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. Vs Mohan Singh

Arn Infrastructures India Limited Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental CIRCLE-28 Delhi & Ors.

Subedar Krishan Kumar Vs Union of India and Anr.

Nupur Agarwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

M/S. Jindal Trading Co. through Its Proprietor Sh. Suresh Jindal Vs Commissioner, Delhi GST and Anr.

Geeta Kumari Vs State NCT of Delhi

Huma International Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ganga Ram Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Jeremy Dale Dyck Vs Union of India & Ors.

Blessing Society Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rohit Mahendru & Ors. Vs Directorate of Enforcement through Deputy Director & Ors.

Jyoti Cnc Automation Ltd. & Anr. Vs Ms Lal Singh Panesar and Sons & Anr.