Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Srinivasan vs M/O Railways on 19 October, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00195/2013
Dated this 19th day of October Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN MEMBER (J)
S.Srinivasan,
S/o.M.V.Sathya Moorthy,
Working as K-Helper,
Basin Bridge Coaching Department,
Chennai.
Res. At 1197 'B' Type, III Main Road,
Mathur M.M.D.A.
Malani, Chennai. ... Applicant
By Advocate Ms. Y. Kavitha for M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar & Sai Associates
Vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep.by the General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai.
2.Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/MAS,
Divisional Railway Manager's Office,
Personnel Branch, MAS Division,
Chennai. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr.R.S.Krishnaswamy
2
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Member (A)) The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. to set aside the Notification No.M/P (1M) 98/IV/SK.Artisan/Tech.III/Vol.II, dated 04.05.2011, passed by the 2 respondent in so far as it prescribes the nd qualification as Matriculation or its equivalent or passed 10th Std under 10 + 2 system and Order No.M/P (1M) 98/ VI /C & W/Vol.II, dated 17.12.2012, passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same;
ii. to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of Technician Grade III with effect from the date when the selected candidates are appointed with arrears of pay and allowances and all other consequential benefits;
iii. to award costs, and pass such further or other orders of directions as may deem fit and proper and thus render justice."
2. Facts of the case are as under:
The applicant had completed National Apprenticeship course in the year 1994 in the trade of Carpenter conducted by the National Council of Vocational Training under the Ministry of Labour. He has pursued the said course after completing 9th standard. He was engaged as substitute C & W Helper - II in Mechanical Department, Southern Railway. Further, he was empanelled for absorption against regular Group-D post by the Screening Committee. He has 3 also done BA (Tamil) in Open University. He belongs to UR category. The 2nd respondent called for applications from serving employees for filling up the vacancies of Technician Grade-III/Fitter/C &W against 25% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1900. The total number of vacancies advertised was 98. As per the notification, the educational qualification which is prescribed is passed matriculation or its equivalent or passed 10th standard under 10+2. This is in violation of the Recruitment Rules. The applicant who is already an Act Apprentice applied for the said post through proper channel. The applicant was found eligible by the 2nd respondent and was alerted to be in readiness for written examination. The applicant appeared in the written examination which was held on 15.09.2012 and performed exceedingly well. On evaluation, 38 employees including the applicant who have secured 60% of marks and above were found to be qualified in the written test. To the shock and surprise of the applicant, by order dated 17.12.2012 it was communicated that the name of the applicant has been deleted from the list on the ground that the applicant did not pass 10th standard. The impugned order is in violation of the Recruitment Rules. It is necessary to state that while implementing the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission, the post of Skilled Artisan was re-designated as Technician Grade III. As per Schedule I of Apprentices Act, for the trade of Carpenter, the educational qualification prescribed is passed 8th class examination under 10+2 system of education or its equivalent. Hence, the impugned notification prescribing the qualification as 4 Matriculation or its equivalent or passed 10th standard is in violation of the Recruitment Rules. It is a customary practice in Railways that an employee who has done Apprentice Course in a particular trade can apply to any of the trades in the post of Technician. The applicant possesses the requisite qualification and hence, he cannot be denied appointment to the said post. Hence, the applicant is constrained to file this Original Application.
3. Heard Counsel for Applicant, M/s. PVS Giridhar & Sai Association represented by Ms.Y.Kavitha, and Counsel for Respondent, Mr. R.S.Krishnaswamy, and perused the materials and arguments of the applicant and respondent.
Arguments of the Applicant:
4. The main contention of the learned counsel is the essential qualification for the post of Technician Grade III is Act Apprenticeship. But, for the LDCE Quota, lesser qualification is prescribed to enable Helpers to be promoted to the said post after three years of regular service and they are imparted necessary training in the post. The applicant possesses the requisite qualification and, hence, he cannot be denied appointment to the said post. 4.1 The learned counsel further contended that the impugned notification has been issued for filling up the post under the LDCE Quota and the Recruitment Rules stipulate educational qualification as laid down in the Apprentices Act. As per Schedule I of the Act, for the trade of Carpenter, the 5 educational qualification prescribed is passed 8th class examination under 10+2 system of education or its equivalent. The applicant has done the Apprentice Course only after completing the 9th standard. Hence, the impugned notification, prescribing the qualification as Matriculation or its equivalent or passed 10th standard, is contrary to the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that it is well established that when there is a conflict between a statute/statutory rules and an administrative notification (executive action), it is the former which will prevail. Therefore, the learned counsel contended that an employee who has done the Apprentice Course in a particular trade, can apply for any of the trades in the post of Technician Grade III. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the applicant is entitled to the relief sought.
Arguments of the Respondents
5. Per contra, the learned counsel vehemently opposed the submissions of the applicant. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents have passed reasoned and speaking order. The educational qualification for the post and technician Grade III/Fitter was passed Matriculation or its equivalent or passed X standard under 10+2 system. This was specifically mentioned in the Notification, dated 04.05.2012.
65.1 The learned counsel further contended that the applicant did not possess the X th standard qualification and his name was deleted from the selection list and the applicant produced only a B.A. Tamil degree pass certificate from the University of Madras acquired through the Open University system and Distance Education and the above degree could not be taken as the prescribed qualification. The learned counsel contended that the degree obtained from the Open University is neither recognized nor treated as fulfilling the basic qualification as held by this Tribunal in O.A No.270 of 2012, by its order, dated 22.11.2012. Para 15 of the order, dt. 22.11.2012, is extracted below:-
"15.........The Hon'ble High Court of Madras after exhaustively referring to Ramesh's case held that degree or diploma obtained from Open University only after completion of 10+2 pattern alone will be valid........"
5.2 The learned counsel also contended that it is true that under the recruitment rules stipulated in the Apprentices Act, for the trade of Carpenter, the educational qualification was prescribed as 8th Class pass. However, in the same Schedule I, Rule (3) and (7) (1), the prescribed educational qualification for Fitter was passed 10th class examination under 10+2 system. Therefore, the learned counsel pleaded that the OA should be dismissed. Findings of the Tribunal
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on record. As per the Notification, dated 04.05.2012, the educational 7 qualification prescribed for filling up of the vacancies of Tech Gr.III C & W Fitter is passed matriculation or its equivalent or passed 10th standard under 10+2 system. Having known of this, the applicant has produced a B.A Tamil degree certificate from the Open University and projected himself as if he has the prescribed qualification. In the Notification, dated 04.05.2012, passed matriculation or its equivalent or passed the 10th standard under the 10+2 system is categorically mentioned as the eligibility criteria by way of educational qualification for the post of Fitter.
7. As per the order, dt. 17.12.2012, of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Chennai Division (Annexure -8 to the OA) which has been challenged here, it has been communicated to the applicant that -
"...... it is seen from the records that you are not possessing the requisite qualification as per the notification, but you have inadvertently been allowed to appear in the selection held on 15.09.2012. It is also noticed that you have produced only a BA (Tamil) degree passed certificate from University of Madras acquired through Open University system and Distance Education. The above degree is not to be taken as prescribed qualification as the procedure of qualifying SSLC/Matriculation has not been followed.
However, in order to confirm you were advised to produce Xth standard passed certificate but have failed to produce the same and declared in your letter dt. 07.11.2012 that you have not passed X standard.
It is reiterated that as per the notification dt. 04.05.12, the prescribed educational qualification for the above post is "Passed matriculation or its equivalent or passed 10th standard under 10+2 system". Your name has inadvertently been included for the selection. Since you are not possessing the requisite qualification of SSLC/Matriculation you are not eligible for the above selection."
The issue of lack of educational qualification has been discussed in detail in the foregoing paras.
8. Another vital aspect of the case is also revealed in the order, dt. 17.12.2012 (Annexure A8), as follows:-
8
"Further, you have also declared in your application against Sl. No. 3 of declaration. "I possess the requisite qualification/eligibility conditions spelt out for the post. I am aware that if any one of my declaration is found to be false I am liable to be taken up under D&A Rules" and as such you are liable to be taken up under DAR besides deleting your name from the above selection."
Since the applicant does not possess the requisite qualification as per the notification and had misrepresented about the same in his application, the name of the applicant was deleted from the selection list. The respondents are found to have passed a reasoned and speaking order on 17.12.2012, which is shown as Anenxure A8 to the OA.
9. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no interference is called for with the said impugned order, dt. 17.12.2012. In the above circumstances, the OA is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the OA is dismissed, accordingly. No order as to costs.
(M. SWAMINATHAN) (VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
19.10.2023
IG/SKSI