LI Network
Published on: 18 August 2023 at 19:16 IST
The Delhi High Court has directed the matter to a larger bench to determine whether Seniority Guidelines based on pay scales or Board Level positions can take precedence over the preference for Chartered Accountants in job advertisements for the position of Director (Finance) in Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) in, Geeta Sharma V. Public Enterprises Selection Board & Ors
Justice Jyoti Singh was presiding over a petition challenging the appointments of Directors (Finance) in Telecommunications Consultants (India) Ltd. (TCIL) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL).
The crux of the matter revolves around the interaction between Seniority Guidelines established via an I.M dated 31.01.2018 and a ‘preference’ clause in advertisements outlining educational qualifications for the Director (Finance) position.
The petitioner, who was not shortlisted for an interview, contended that her higher pay scale and Board Level position should have granted her preference over juniors with lower pay scales according to the Seniority Guidelines.
The respondents, however, argued that the Guidelines only determine seniority among applicants from different organizations based on their pay scales and positions, while shortlisting should prioritize mandatory qualifications, including the preference for Chartered Accountants.
The central question before the court was:
Can higher pay scales or Board Level positions outweigh educational qualifications, considering the nature of the post, the preference for Chartered Accountants, and the absence of such a preference in the advertisements?
Analyzing the appointment process for Director (Finance), guided by the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) Guidelines dated 29.08.2017 for Board Level Appointments, the respondents maintained that revised educational qualifications prioritizing Chartered Accountants were approved prior to releasing the advertisements.
The court explored whether the preference for Chartered Accountants could be superseded by higher pay scales or Board Level positions. It underscored that qualifications are determined by employers and that the focus on Chartered Accountants was tailored to specific job requirements.
The court also reiterated that it can only intervene in selection processes when there are allegations of malafides or statutory violations.
The court emphasized that qualifications stipulated in job advertisements are within the purview of the employer’s discretion, which extends to prescribing additional or desirable qualifications to suit the nature of vacant positions.
In conclusion, the court ruled that the preference for a Chartered Accountant as part of the educational qualifications cannot be sacrificed or overlooked by inter-se seniority based on higher pay scales or Board Level positions.
While Seniority Guidelines were designed to establish seniority among applicants from different CPSEs based on pay scales and positions, they cannot be used to override the preference clause for Chartered Accountants, which was established to meet the requirements of the position.
The court noted that the PESB’s preference for Chartered Accountants was a deliberate choice aiming for consistency across Public Sector Enterprises, and this decision was evident in the advertisements and the application advisory.
Due to a conflicting decision from a Coordinate Bench, which asserted that Seniority Guidelines would take precedence over the preference for Chartered Accountants only when candidates have the same pay scales and/or Board Level positions, the court referred the matter to a larger bench.
