Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Shashikant vs Union Of India Through on 15 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2917/2010
New Delhi this the 15th day of September, 2011.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Shashikant,
S/o Sh. Suresh Prasad Verma,
R/o F-205 DMEC Staff Quarters,
Metro Vihar, Shastri Park,
Delhi-53. . Applicant
(through Sh. U. Srivastava, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation through
its Chairman, Metro Bhawan Fire
Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi.
2. The Deputy CPO/O & M,
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
3. The AGM/R & T (HOD HR)
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,
Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. .. Respondents
(through Sh. Shankar Kumar Jha for Sh. Chandan Kumar, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) This application has been filed with regard to the grievance of the applicant that although results in respect of selection for appointment to the post of Station Controller/Train Operator (SC/TO) have been published and the applicant has duly qualified in the selection tests, yet his medical examination which was subject to production of proof of recognition of the Institute and the validity of its course has been withheld in spite of the fact that documents in support of the recognition and validity have been supplied by the applicant. His prayer is for a direction to the respondents to finalize the case of his appointment to the aforesaid post.
2. The respondents notified the vacancies in the Employment News for appointment to the posts pf SC/TO coming under Post Code-01. The applicant was a candidate for the post and his Roll No. was 3012915. The written test was held on 14.02.2010; having qualified that test, he appeared for psychological test and was subsequently interviewed. It is his submission that he was declared qualified after the tests and as per the notice published by the respondents in the Employment News dated 28.11.2009/04.12.2009, his Roll No. was included in the short list for medical examination. It was also mentioned in the notice that those who had obtained diploma/degree certificates from private/affiliated institutions should produce proof of recognition of the Institute and the courses concerned, as well as the validity for the session of their courses by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)/Government within 30 days. The applicant further submits that he had furnished all the requisite documents and made representation to know about the date of his medical examination, but there was no response.
3. It is the case of the applicant that he had taken admission for diploma in Electrical Engineering from Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan through correspondence course and got the permission of the respondents under whom he was already in employment for prosecuting that course through Distance Mode. He completed the course and got the certificate for Diploma in Electrical Engineering for the examination held in June 2006.
3.1 He further submits that his name appears at Serial No. 197 of the provisional short list of candidates published by the respondents. The validity of the certificate issued by a similar Institution, namely, JRM Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur was examined by the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case Vikas Kumar Vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board & Anr., (CWP No.1405/2009 decided on 13.01.2010). It was held that the Institution was a deemed University and it did not have to take the approval of AICTE and the diploma certificate issued by the deemed University was valid.
3.1 The applicant also places reliance on the decision of the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case Ravinder Jakhar & Ors. Vs. Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation & Anr., (CWP No. 21331/2008 dated 03.03.2010) which was allowed, although it was contested by the respondents on the ground that courses conducted by the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE) Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahr, Rajasthan were not valid. He has also cited the interim orders passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA-11039/2009 in which the respondents were directed to consider the qualification of diploma in Automobile Engineering acquired from the IASE, deemed University as valid.
4. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a similar issue has been decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-1210/2010 and also in OA-3741/2009. Since the facts of this case are covered in all fours by the aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal, the applicant is entitled to similar reliefs. Further, the applicant should be entitled to seniority as per his position in the merit list already published by the respondents.
5. The respondents have, however, submitted in their counter reply that the applicant had obtained diploma in Electrical Engineering from IASE, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahr, Rajasthan. The Distance Education Council (DEC) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University had categorically stated in Paragraph-2 of its letter dated 15.03.2010 that the programme of Electrical Engineering conducted by IASE through Distance Mode did not have specific approval of the DEC nor did it have the approval of the Apex Body controlling Technical Education, namely, AICTE. Subsequently, the DEC had issued an advertisement on 16.03.2010 stating that any degree/diploma/certificate offered through Distance Mode not recognized by DEC would not be accepted for employment in government service. It placed reliance on a letter dated 30.04.2010 of IASE which, according to the respondents, made an admission that the DEC had not given approval to the programmes run by the Institute.
6. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment of the matter under review in RA-66/2011 has been pronounced on 12.09.2011. He further submits that three other similar applications are pending before different Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal and all these should be taken up for hearing together
8. We find that the issue has been examined in great detail in OA-1210/2010 and also in RA-66/2011. After examining all the materials including those on which reliance is being placed in the present O.A., it has been held that the subject of approval to the courses for diploma in Electrical Engineering run by IASE was examined by a Joint Committee of representatives of UGC, DEC and AICTE in its meeting held on 07.08.2007 and the programmes run by the Institute from 2005 to 2007-08 were specifically approved. It had also discussed the judgments of the Honble High court of Punjab & Haryana in the case Vikash Kumar Vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board and another, (CWP-1405/2009) decided on 13.01.2010 of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case Sudesh Kumari and others Vs. HPSEB, (CWP-3206/2010) decided on 05.04.2011 and came to the conclusion that the diploma awarded by IASE of Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan, a deemed University, was a valid one. Since the facts are the same, we do not find that any case has been made out to distinguish the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid cases. As regards the submission of the respondents that the letter dated 30.04.2010 of IASE makes an admission that the course was not approved by DEC, we find that full facts of the case including the approval granted by the Joint Committee on 07.08.2007, the letter of UGC dated 13.11.2007 stating that in view of the approval of the Joint Committee there was no necessity for taking the approval from UGC, the letter of AICTE dated 04.10.2007 stating that degrees/diplomas obtained through Distance mode and approved by DEC did not require AICTE approval and all other relevant documents cited in that letter were in support of the contention that the programme had the approval of DEC and other authorities. Therefore, it was wrong to state that IASE letter conveyed a meaning which was altogether different.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any justification to disagree with the reasoning made by this Tribunal in OA-1210/2010 and RA-66/2011. In the result, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant for appointment on the post of SC/TO if he otherwise qualifies for it after completion of medical examination and other formalities. The delay in offering him appointment is not attributable to the applicant. Therefore, he should be given seniority on the basis of his position in the merit list published by the respondents in connection with selection of candidates for that post. However, the applicant will not be entitled to any salary until he is appointed on the post and discharges the responsibilities of that post. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber) Member (A) Member (J) /vinita/