Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Babi Sahu vs Ordnance Factory on 26 March, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020
Reserved on: 09.03.2026 Pronounced on: 26.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Babi Sahu, aged about 34 years, S/o.
Nilanchal Sahu, At/Po-Bagbadi, Dist. Bargarh-
768029.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of
Defence, Nirman Bhawan, South Block, New
Delhi, Pin-110011.
2. Director General of Training (DGT), Ministry
of Skill Development & Enterpreurship, B-2,
Koushal Bhawan, Pusa Road, Karolbagh, New
Delhi, Pin-110005.
3. Director General, Ordnance Factories, Ayudh
Bhawan, 10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkata, West
Bengal, Pin-700001.
4. Principal Director, NADP Premises,
Ambajhari, Nagpur, Maharastra, Pin-440021.
5. General Manager, Ordnance Factories,
Badmal, At/Po. Badmal, Dist. Bolangir, Pin-
767070.
......Respondents
For the applicants : Mr.D.K.Panda, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. C.Mohanta, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.26
10:14:44 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
This OA has been filed by the applicant, on the grounds pleaded, by the learned counsel for the Applicant, based on the pleadings, are that the applicant completed one year Board Based Basic Training Course in the Sector of Process Plant Maintenance from ITI, Hirakud during 2007, and, had also completed six months advance Module in Operator Chemical Plant at ITI, Hirakud. The National Trade Certificates issued to the above extent has been placed as Annexure-A/1 series to this OA. He had also completed six months Training Course in Operator Chemical Plant from M/s. Bhusan Power and Steel Ltd., Jhelkoloi, Sambalpur. In pursuance of Advt., placed at Annexure-A/2, he had submitted application along with NTC certificate of the Trade of DBW and, also on 05.10.2019 but despite submission of said certificate, the Respondents rejected his candidature due to non possession of requisite documents RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 vide letter placed at Annx.A/8, that too in an unreasoned order, without indicating which of the certificates as desired by the Respondents was not submitted by the applicant. According to him, the certificates submitted by him was in accordance with the letter of GoI, Ministry of Skill Development & Enterpreneurship, Directorate General of Training (DG), New Delhi dated 09.08.2016 which letter was communicated to one Shri Santosh Kujur on his RTI application dated 2005, regarding Equivalence of Trade and Centre of Excellence (COE) with Industrial Training Institute (ITI). It is stated that with same qualification and certificates persons were appointed and still are continuing whereas, the candidature of applicant was rejected. Hence, according to him, since the rejection of his candidature alleging the applicant did not possess and submit the requisite documents/certificate is bad in law being violative of the provisions enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, by filing this OA, he prayed the reliefs as under:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 "8. Relief(s) sought:
(i) To quash the order of rejection vide Annexure-A/8 issued by respondent No.5 on dated 06.08.2020;
(ii) After further direct the respondent No.5 to appoint him if the Trade of Danger Building Worker (DBW) forthwith;
(iii) And further to pay all service and financial benefits retrospectively;
(iv) To allow the OA with costs;
(v) Any other relief(s) be passed as deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice."
2. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the applicant completed one-year Board Based Basic Training Course in the Sector of Process Plant Maintenance from ITI, Hirakud in 2007 and six months Advance Module in Operator Chemical Plant at ITI, Hirakud and National Trade Certificates were issued in his favour. Further, he completed six months Training Course in Operator Chemical Plant from M/s. Bhusan Power and Steel Ltd.
Jhelkoloi, Sambalpur. Thus, the applicant had acquired NTC Certificate to the Trade of DBW as per the Advertisement and submitted the same but those certificates were not taken into consideration by the respondents. However, on RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 05.10.2019 he once again submitted said certificates but the respondents without taking the same into consideration, rejected his candidature that too in a non-speaking order without indicating the certificates which were required but the applicant did not submit the same notwithstanding the fact that every administrative order must be a speaking one since recording of reasons is an assurance that the authority had applied its mind to the facts on record. According to him, one Sri Santosh Kujur, applied under RTI Act with regard to Equivalence of Trade of Centre of Excellence (COE) with Industrial Training Institute (ITI) and he was communicated the information wherein it is provided as under:
S.No. Qualification certificate(s) Suggested submitted by the Candidate trade under concurrence. NCVT *** *** *** 13 National Trade certificate of One year BBBT in sector of Process Plant Maintenance COE + NTC of any of the following 6 month course advance module in -
Operator Chemical Plant OR Operation & Maintenance of Boiler & Steam Turbine;
OR Mechanical Maintenance of Processes RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 Plant; Attendant OR Operator Process Plant Mechanical Maintenance; (Chemical Plant) OR Repairing of Equipment;
OR
Process Plant Refrigeration & Air
Conditioning Maintenance;
OR
Electrical Maintenance of Process Plant;
OR Electronic and Instrument Maintenance of Process Plant;
OR Fabrication and Designing of Steel Structure + Specialize Module of 6 months in same sector.
Hence, according to him, although, persons viz. (i) Susanta Kumar Sahoo of Naland (ii) Chandrasekhar Pradhan, and
(iii) Sipak Kumar Dash, having same qualification and trade were selected in past and are continuing in the post of DBW under the respondents whereas the candidature of the applicant has been cancelled/rejected although he acquired the same qualification and submitted the same to the authorities concerned. Hence, it is stated that the rejection of his candidature is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and is in violation of the mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 therefore, the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in this OA.
3. Respondents filed counter strongly refuting/objecting/ contesting the case of the Applicant. The stand taken in the counter has been highlighted by learned counsel appearing for the Respondents in course of hearing. According to Respondents, vide Advertisement No. 10201/11/0209/1718 online applications were invited for filling up of 252 vacancies of Danger Building Workmen (DBW) [UR-126, OBC-28, SC-42, ST-56] in Ordnance Factory located throughout India. The last date of receipt of such application was 19.06.2017. The Applicant was one of the candidates for the post of DBW. Since applications were invited online and large number of candidates applied for various posts, before the document verification regarding their eligibility with respect to the age, educational qualification and caste etc., candidates were permitted to appear at the written examination held on 10.09.2017 and the present applicant was also one among others.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 A list containing the names of the candidates, who came out successful in the written examination, was published in the official website for provisional document verification/Trade Test wherein the name of the present applicant also finds place. Accordingly, candidates were called upon for verification of documents/Trade Test, which was carried out/done at Ordnance Factory, Chanda in Maharastra from 18.1.2018 to 24.1.2018. The Selection Committee allowed 47 candidates, who came out successful in written examination to appear the Trade Test for the post of DBW, including the applicant. A list of successful candidates after the Trade Test containing names of 319 candidates, including names of 47 candidates for the post of DBW, was published including the name of the present applicant. In terms of the rules and conditions stipulated in the Advertisement, candidates acquiring certificate of NTC/NAC of Attendant Operator Chemical Plant (AOCP) or Process Plant Operator (PPO) Trade Certificate were eligible for the post of DBW. However, in order to ascertain RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 the validity of Trade Certificates, a clarification was sought from the Directorate General of Training (DGT) New Delhi vide letter dt 6.10.2018. The DGT, in letter dt. 12.10.2018, clarified that the matching NCVT approved certificates in respect of COE scheme and Craftsman Training Scheme is as under :
Name of the Trade Suggested Trade
Under NCVT
National Trade Certificate (NTC) 2 years of Trade of one year BBBT in sector of Attendant Operator chemical COE NTC in Advance Plant Chemical Module 6 months course in Operator.
Attendant Operator Certification Specialized Module of 6 month in same sector.
Trade Attendant Operator Chemical Plant (AOCP) with duration of two years has suggested to equivalent only those who have completed all modules of training i.e. One year BBBT + 6 months advance module and 6 months specialized.
According to the respondents, in the Advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that the minimum qualification for the post of DBW was Matriculation with NTC/NAC issued by the National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT) in the Attendant Operator Chemical Plant (AOCP) or Process Plant RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 Operator (PPO) Trade whereas it was found that the applicant submitted the certificate of Process Plant Maintenance, which is not a relevant trade for DBW. Hence, he was allowed to submit the relevant certificate within one month failing which his candidature will be cancelled. It is also stated that the DGT letter dated 16.04.2019, which was communicated to Sri Kujur under RTI Act, is meant for the candidates for various posts in the Railway Board. Since the nature and job of DBW in Ordnance Factory is different from the post of Railway Board, the same has no application and the Ordnance Factory makes the selection based on the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement and the DGT Clarification dated 12.10.2018. Relating to the selection and continuance of the persons named above, it is stated that the present selection insofar as eligibility and qualification etc. is confined to what has been mentioned in the Advertisement and, what are the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement, when they were selected has no bearing to the case in hand. In sum and substance, it is stated that RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 since the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification, his candidature was rightly rejected thereby requiring no interference in the matter. Add to the above, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that no employee can claim any right for appointment even after becoming successful in the Test if he/she is found lacking of qualification as per the rules. In the instant case, since on verification, before giving appointment, it was found that the applicant is lacking the requisite qualification/Trade Certificate, in a particular subject/institution, rejection of his candidature cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner. Hence, he has prayed that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
4. After giving thread bearing consideration to the points noted above, we have perused the records.
5. The entire matter revolves around for adjudication what are/were the requisite certificates one has to possess for selection to the post of DBW and as to whether the applicant possessed the same at the relevant point of time. RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 In this regard, we have gone through the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement wherein it is clearly provide that a candidate for the post of DBW must have possess the NAC/NTC in Attendant Operator Chemical Plant, Process Plant Operator and in letter darted 12.10.2018, the competent authority has made it clear relating to educational certificate stating therein that the matching of NCVT, approved certificate in respect of COE Scheme and Craftsman Training Scheme is as under:
Name of the Trade Suggested Trade
Under NCVT
National Trade Certificate (NTC) 2 years of Trade
of one year BBBT in sector of Attendant Operator
chemical COE + NTC in Advance Chemical Plant
Module in any of the following 6 (AOCP).
months course Advanced Module
in
Attendant Operator
+
Certificates in Specialized
Module of 6 month in same
sector.
In the said letter, it was further stated as under:
"It is observed that the copies of certificates of 47 candidates which have forwarded vide letter no.
06.10.2018 to this Directorate not indicate the completion of training. Some of the candidates has attached only NTC issued for one year while some of candidates have RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 enclosed only NTC issued for 6 months advanced courses.
Trade Attendant Operator Chemical Plant (AOCP) with duration of 2 year has suggested to equivalent only those who have completed all modules of training i.e. One year BBBT+ 6 months advanced module and 6 months specialized.
It is further informed that National Trade Certificate (NTC)/National Apprentice Certificate (NAC) issued for the trade 'Attendant Operator Chemical Plant (AOCP) is a recognized qualification for purpose of recruitment to subordinate posts and services under Central and State government. However, national Apprentice Certificate (NAC) is higher qualification than National Trade Certificate (NTC)."
6. It is not the case of the applicant that he is having the qualification /certificate of NTC/NAC of Attendant Operator Chemical Plant (AOCP) or Process Plant Operator (PPO) Trade Certificate as per the Advertisement but the respondents illegally and arbitrarily rejected his candidature while accepting the candidature of any one even he/she does not have the aforesaid qualification/certificate. It is also not the case of the applicant that the conditions stipulated in the advertisement is in any manner contrary to the condition stipulated in the rules. He has also not produced any such document issued by the respondents to establish that the qualification and RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 14 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 certificate, which he has obtained is equivalent to the qualification/certificate mentioned in the Advertisement. Each department of the Govt. has its own rules governing the service condition of the employees. The candidate has no right to claim the benefit based on the rules or orders issued relating to the service conditions of any other department. In the instant case, the applicant has made endeavour to establish his claim or the qualification/certificate, which he had acquired is akin to the qualification required by the respondents for the post of DBW based on a letter issued by the DGT on 09.08.2016 which has been supplied to another person under RTI Act insofar as the recruitment to various posts in Railway without also bringing into record any such order issued by the Ordnance Factory Board adopting the condition stipulated in the DGT letter dated 09.08.2016. The applicant has also alleged that many persons with the qualification/certificate, which he possess, were recruited in past and are continuing in the post of DBW under the respondents but he did not RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 15 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 produce any such Advertisement to show what were the required qualification/certificate stipulated in the said Advertisement so as to draw favourable inference for the relief claimed by him in this OA. Rather, going through the entire case of the applicant, it establishes that the entire endeavour of the applicant is to declare the qualification/certificate which is possessed, are/is equivalent to the qualification/certificate mentioned in the Advertisement.
7. In this regard, it may be noted that it is an well established principle that the authorities are duty bound and obliged to strictly follow the conditions, especially, the educational and experience qualifications stipulated in the recruitment advertisement. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that the equivalency of qualifications is an academic matter for specialized recruiting authorities, not courts, which cannot use judicial review to declare equivalence. Courts are not equipped to determine if a course is equivalent to another and must defer to RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 16 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 authority expertise. In the case of J.Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P., [(1990) 1 SCC 288], it is observed and held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is not for the court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts.
8. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published.
9. In the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 652, the Apex Court held that if the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 17 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
10. Further, in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors, (2019) 2 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. The above view has been accepted and reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent significant decision rendered in the case of Unnikrishnan CV & Others Versus Union of India & RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 18 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020 Others, Civil Appeal No. 7188 of 2013 decided on March 28, 2023.
11. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that the process of selection and recruitment is to be conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules in force and the terms and conditions notified in the Notification. Equal opportunity being a Constitutional mandate. The Authorities Competent are bound to follow the Rules as well as the terms and conditions of the Recruitment scrupulously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a recent case, decided on 03.11.2020 in Civil Appeal No.3602 of 2020 held that the prescription of educational qualifications and eligibility criteria are the prerogative of the employers, however, the employer must keep in mind the various factors and implications, while prescribing such educational qualifications as well as the eligibility criteria. Suitability and eligibility being a prime factors to be considered for a selection, the job responsibility, attached with a particular post.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.26 10:14:44 +05'30' 19 O.A.No. 260/000587 of 2020
12. The outcome of the discussions made above, it is crystal clear that the court/tribunal cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review and the fact that the applicant did not possess the qualification/certificate as per the Advertisement/rules, in the said premises, the irresistible conclusion is that this OA sans any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the OA so also MA, if any, pending stand dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.03.26
10:14:44 +05'30'