Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs Sri Prashanth Kumar Soni on 7 January, 2020
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana, H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO.48027/2017(S-CAT)
BETWEEN
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
NEW DELHI-100 001
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
2. RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD
#18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE-560 046
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR SONI
S/O KAILASH CHANDRA SONI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT NR POST OFFICE
BHILAI-3, DURG
CHATTISGARH-490 021 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED IN
O.A.NO.1264 OF 2015 BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondents-1 and 2 in O.A.No.170/001264/2015 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru, ('Tribunal' for short) have come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 16.06.2017.
2. Admittedly, the said application was filed by the respondent herein seeking quashing of Annexure-A1 in the said proceedings which is a communication bearing RRB / BNC / Court Case / OA.191/2011/SBC/83 dated 03.10.2012 and also for declaration that the respondent herein is eligible for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot ('ALP' 3 for short) (category No.26) vide Annexure-A2 and further sought a direction to the respondents therein to appoint the applicant to the post of ALP as per advertisement with retrospective effect and with consequential benefits.
3. The sum and substance of the proceedings is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the 2nd petitioner - Railway Recruitment Board, Bengaluru, for appointing ALPs vide employment notice No.1/2007, the petitioner herein applied for the post of ALP wherein the requisite qualification prescribed for the said post is "Matriculation pass plus a) ITI in specified trades/Act, Apprenticeship or b) Diploma in Mech./Elec./Electronics/Automobile Engg. in lieu of I.T.I." It is stated that when the application of petitioner was taken up for scrutiny, it was noticed that he had mentioned his educational qualification as 'Diploma in Electronics and Communication' and during document verification it was found that he has 4 secured "Diploma in Communication Engineering"
from Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik ['YCMOU', for short].
4. The said application was rejected on the ground that the qualification secured by the respondent herein through Open University is not accepted or in the alternative it is contended that it is not a requisite qualification for the said post. The said communication of rejection of his application was subject matter of challenge in OA No.170/001264/2015 on the file of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal allowed the said application and consequently, directed the respondents to issue an order of appointment to the applicant to the post of ALP within one month from the date of the impugned order dated 16.06.2017, which is under challenge before this Court wherein the petitioner would rely upon an unreported judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in 5 W.P.No.67479/2011(S-CAT) in the matter of South Western Railway and Another Vs. Fakruddin Baba Sahib and others disposed off by order dated 18.02.2015.
5. In the aforesaid order under similar circumstance, the coordinate bench of this Court has observed as under:
"8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that respondents No.1 and 2 have not challenged the notification, but have responded to the notification and applied keeping in view the requirement that has been sought in the said notification. If that be the position, when in the notification it has been clearly indicated that the degree possessed by the persons who are to apply in response to the notification should be recognized by the AICTE and when respondents No.1 and 2 were aware that the degree obtained by them was awarded by the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University is under the distance education course and had not been recognized by the AICTE, if at all the respondents No.1 and 2 had any grievance, they could have only assailed the notification 6 even before applying in response to the notification. Instead, respondents no.1 and 2 who applied, cannot now be heard to aprobate and reprobate having taken part in the selection process by applying as against the notification, despite not possessing the requisite degree as it did not have the recognition by the AICTE which was a requirement under the Employment Notice.
9. If the said aspect of the matter is kept in view, in the instant facts, respondents No.1 and 2 could not have assailed only the subsequent communication which had been issued to them, indicating that their candidature cannot be considered. In the present circumstance, the decision relied upon by the CAT would not enure to the benefit of respondents. Therefore, the ultimate order passed by the CAT based on the said decision would also not been sustainable."
6. In the aforesaid circumstance, it is clearly seen that the order impugned in OA No.170/001264/2015 dated 16.06.2017 is subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order by the 7 coordinate Bench of this Court and the order impugned is directly in contravention of the law laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid referred order. Hence, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the order impugned in OA No.170/001264/2015 dated 16.06.2017 is hereby set aside.
7. In view of main appeal being allowed, I.A.No.1/18 filed for vacating stay is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE TL