Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Stephen Stewart vs M/O Defence on 19 March, 2020
1 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Madras Bench
OA/310/001943/2014, OA/310/00169/2016, MA/310/00729/2013 & (in)(&)
OA/310/01328/2013, OA/310/01234/2013, OA/310/01327/2013,
OA/310/01909/2014, OA/310/01936/2014, OA/310/00166/2016, OA/310/1408/2012
& OA/310/01665/2013
Dated the 19th day of March Two Thousand Twenty
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr. P.Madhavan, Member(J)
&
Hon'ble Mr.T.Jacob, Member(A)
OA 1943/2014:
1. Stephen Steward
2. P.Murugan
3. J.Neelagandan
4. D.Joseph Antony
5. K.Anantha Jothi
6. M.V.Mohan
7. B.Prem Kumar
8. M.Rajamani
9. R.Ganesan
10.L.Vennila
11.S.Velavan .. Applicants
By Advocate M/s.Menon Karthik Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by the
Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road,
Kolkatta.
2. Senior General Manager,
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3. Institution of Mechanical Engineers' (India),
Hasmukj Bhawan, Plot No.24,
2 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra 410 210. .. respondents
By Adovacte Mr.M.Kishore Kumar (R1&2), Mr.S.Rajendrakumar
OA 169/2016:
1. K.Manimaran
2. J.Ezhilarasan
3. A.Sajitha ..Applicants
By Advocate M/s.Menon Karthik Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep by the
Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta.
2. General Manager,
Engine Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210. .. Respondents
By Advocate M/s.C.Kulanthaivel
OA 1328/2013:
1. P.Ashok Kumar
2. S.Karthik
3. K.V.Vijayakumar
4. R.Vijayakumar
5. K.Uma Shankar
6. S.Thirumurugan
7. P.Vellikannan
8. R.Prakash
9. K.Raja ..Applicants/Applicants
By Advocate M/s.Menon Karthik Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by the
3 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta.
2. General Manager,
Engine Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210. .. Respondents
By Advocate M/s.C.Kulanthaivel (R1&2), Mr.S.Rajendrakumar(R3)
OA 1234/2013:
1. M.Saravanan
2. M.Selvakumar
3. S.Albert John Kennedy
4. S.Arumugasamy
5. J.Loganathan
6. A.Ponnaiya
7. D.Ganapathi
8. A.Parasuraman
9. M.Uthayakkumar
10.N.Senthilkumar
11.R.Senthil
12.M.Saravanan
13.K.Arunkumar
14.R.Narayana Samy,
15.R.Baskar
16.S.Abbaas
17.R.Ravindran
18.K.R.Krishnan
19.T.Mahendran
20.S.Karthikeyan
21.P.Asok Kumar
22.S.Vijayakumar
23.S.Venkatesaperumal
24.V.Dhanasekaran
25.P.Neelakandan
26.Nirmalan ..Applicants
By Advocate M/s.D.Nagasaila
4 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by
Director(A),
Government of India,
M/o.Finance, Department of Expenditure,
New Delhi.
2. Director General,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, Saheed Khudiram Bose Road,
Kolkata 700 001.
3. The General Manager,
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
Avadi.
4. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210.
..Respondents
By Advocate M/s.C.Kulanthaivel, Mr.S.Rajendrakumar
OA 1327/2013:
1. D.Murali
2. B.Shanthakumar
3. Julie S.Raj
4. R.Rashmi
5. A.D.Rajesh
6. S.Suresh
7. Rajesh Kumar
8. C.Antony Charles
9. D.Anandhan
10.Arjunan D
11.P.G.Vinayagam
12.M.Rekha
13.A.N.Dileep
14.K.G.Shakthikanth
15.R.Gandhimathy
16.P.Hemalatha
17.R.Sumathi
18.T.Devaraj
19.K.Jeeva
20.K.Anandhan
5 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
21.P.Karunakaran
22.S.Hentrin Velanganni
23.M.Senthil Kumar
24.R.G.Gomathi
25.V.Jothimani
26.M.Dhanalakshmi
27.B.Kondamma
28.C.H.Chandramohan
29.T.J.Mohanasundaram
30.S.Radhakrishnan
31.L.Arulprakash
32.C.Thilakavathy
33.S.Chandra Sekaran
34.V.Parthiban
35.D.Dhanasekaran
36.D.Logesh
37.S.Selvaraj
38.J.N.Carmel Prabhu
39.V.Chandran
40.D.Rajesh
41.V.Thanigavel
42.E.Santhi
43.R.Murali Krishnan
44.S.Krishnamurthy
45.M.Ravichandran
46.K.N.Shankar
47.E.Poongodi ..Applicants
By Advocate M/s.Menon Karthik Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by the
Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta.
2. General Manager,
Engine Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3. S.Vijayakumar
4. G.Ananda Murugan
5. P.Prabakaran
6. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
6 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210. ..Respondents
By Advocate Mr.M.Kishore Kumar (R1&2), M/sD.Nagasaila (R3-5),
Mr.S.Rajendrakumar (R6)
OA 1909/2014:
R.Jaganathan
S/o M.Raji
Per No.25068/0762,
No.155, 12th Cross Street,
Thirumalai Vasan Nagar,
S.M.Nagar Post,
Chennai 600 062. ..Applicant
By Advocate M/s.Menon Karthik Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by the
Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta.
2. General Manager,
Engine Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210. ..Respondents
By Advocate M/s.C.Kulanthaivel(R1&2), Mr.S.Rajendrakumar(R3)
OA 1936/2014:
A.Sajitha
Type III, 33/5, HVF Estate,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054. ..Applicant
By Advocate M/s.Menon Karthik Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by the
Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta.
7 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
2. General Manager,
Engine Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210. ..Respondents
By Advocate M/s.C.Kulanthaivel(R1&2), Mr.S.Rajendrakumar(R3)
OA 166/2016:
1. T.J.Mohanasundaram
2. J.Neelagandan
3. G.H.Chandra Mohan
4. E.Shanthi
5. J.N.Carmel Parbhu
6. S.Selvaraj
7. M.Rajamani
8. B.Premkumar
9. C.Anthony Charles
10.M.Rekha
11.Julie, S.Raj
12.Rashmi,R.
13.S.Radhakrishnan
14.B.Kondamma
15.K.Anantha Jothi
16.S.Manoranjani
17.L.Vennila
18.D.Logesh
19.P.Murugan
20.D.Joseph Antony
21.M.V.Mohan
22.D.Dhanasekaran
23.E.Poongodi
24.M.Senthilkumar
25.P.G.Vinayagam
26.M.Ravichandran
27.R.Ganesan
28.P.Hemalatha
29.M.Dhanalakshmi
30.R.Sumathi
31.Rajesh,A.D.
8 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
32.B.Shanta Kumar
33.D.Arjunan
34.Stephen Stewart
35.K.N.Sankar
36.S.Hentrin Velanganni
37.A.N.Dileep
38.T.Devaraj
39.C.Thilagavathy
40.K.Anandhan
41.V.Jothimani
42.V.Parthiban
43.R.Gandhimathi
44.R.G.Gomathi
45.D.Murali
46.V.Chandran
47.G.Babu Santhakumar
48.K.Sugumar
49.C.Vinil Kumar
50.R.Citti Babu
51.R.Muruganantham
52.A.S.Sadasivam
53.R.Premavathi
54.G.Gomathi
55.N.Prakash
56.K.Rajasekaran
57.P.Uma Maheswari
58.B.Geetha
59.M.Dhanalakshmi ..Applicants
By Advocate M/s.Menon Karthik Mukundan & Neelakantan
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by the
Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta.
2. Senior General Manager,
Heavy Vehicles Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
3. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
9 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210.
By Advocate Mr.M.Kishore Kumar (R1&2), Dr.G.Krishnamurthy (R3)
OA 1408/2012:
S.Rajesh
S/o Shri K.Shankar,
207, Type-III, CVRDE Quarters,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054. ..Applicant
By Advocate M/s.K.M.Ramesh
Vs.
1. The Union of India, rep. by the
Director,
Combat Vehicles (Research &
Development) Establishment,
M/o Defence, Avadi,
Chennai 600054.
2. The Union of India, rep by the
Director,
Directorate of Human Resources Development,
Defence Research & Development Organisation,
M/o Defence, DRDO Bhawan,
New Delhi 110105.
3. The Secretary,
M/o Human Resources Development,
Department of Higher Education,
Government of India,
New Delhi 110115.
4. All India Council for Technical Education
(A statutory Body of the Government of India),
7th Floor, Chandulok Building, Janpath,
New Delhi 110001.
5. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210.
By Advocate M/s.C.Kulanthaivel(R1&2), Mr.S.Rajendrakumar(R3)
OA 1665/2013:
G.Krishnamoorthy,
S/o N.Govindasamy,
10 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
Type II, 81/6,
HVF Quarters,
Avadi, Chennai-54. ..Applicant
By Advocate M/s.R.Singgaravelan
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep by the
Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta.
2. The Director General,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, S.K.Bose Road, Kolkatta.
3. General Manager,
Engine Factory,
Avadi, Chennai 600 054.
4. Institution of Mechanical Engineers'(India)
Hasmukh Bhawan, Plot No.24,
Behind CIDCO Office,
Near Hiranandani Park,
Sector 4, Khargar,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410 210. ..Respondents
By advocate Mr.V.Chandrasekaran (R1-3), Mr.S.Rajendrakumar(R4)
11 OA 1943/2014 & Batch
ORDER
[Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.P.Madhavan, Member(J)] The above OAs are filed seeking the following relief(s):-
OA 1943/2014:
"To set aside order No.1(6)EST/2014-15/CM/LDCE dated 05.9.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the applicants to appear for the LDCE examination to be conducted for the purpose of Chargeman (technical/mechanical) on 20.12.2014 and 21.12.2014 or any other date as may be stipulated by the respondents and upon being found selected in the said examination appoint the applicant as Chargeman (Technical/Mechanical) and grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
OA 169/2016:
"To set aside the order No.EFA/A/Admin/017/LDCE/CM-2015 dated 22.10.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the applicant to appear for the LDCE Examination to be conducted for the purpose of Chargeman Grade II (Technical/Mechanical) on 04.2.2016 and 05.2.2016 or any other date as may be stipulated by the respondents and upon being found selected in the said examination appoint the applicant as Chargeman (Technical/Mechanical) and grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom."
OA 1328/2013:
"To set aside order No.EFA/A/Admission/017/LDCE/CM dated 19.9.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the applicants to appear for the LDCE examination to be conducted for the purpose of Chargeman grade II (Technical/Mechanical) on 28.9.2013 and 29.9.2013 or any other date as may be stipulated by the respondents and upon being found selected in the said examination appoint the applicants as Chargeman grade II (Technical/Mechanical) and 12 OA 1943/2014 & Batch grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
OA 1234/2013:
"direct the respondents not to consider employees who possess a Diploma from IME or any other institute which is not affiliated/recognized by the AICTE for promotion to the post of Chargeman in the III respondent Factory, and pass such other or further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus render justice."
OA 1327/2013:
"To direct the respondents to permit the applicants to appear for the LDCE examination to be conducted for the purpose of Chargeman Grade II (Technical/Mechanical) on 28.9.2013 and 29.9.2013 or any other date as may be stipulated by the respondents and upon being found selected in the said examination appoint the applicants as Chargeman grade II (Technical/Mechanical) and grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
OA 1909/2014:
"To set aside order No.EFA/A/Admin/017/LDCE/CM dated 04.9.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the applicant to appear for the LDCE examination to be conducted for the purpose of Chargeman Grade II (Technical/Mechanical) on 20.12.2014 and 21.12.2014 or any other date as may be stipulated by the respondents and upon being found selected in the said examination appoint the applicant as Chargeman (Technical/Mechanical) and grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
OA 1936/2014:
"To set aside order No.EFA/A/Admin/017/LDCE/CM dated 04.9.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the applicant to appear for the LDCE 13 OA 1943/2014 & Batch examination to be conducted for the purpose of Chargeman Grade II (Technical/Mechanical) on 20.12.2014 and 21.12.2014 or any other date as may be stipulated by the respondents and upon being found selected in the said examination appoint the applicant as Chargeman (Technical/Mechanical) and grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
OA 166/2016:
"To set aside order No.1(6)EST/2015-16/CM/LDCE dated 21.1.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the applicants to appear for the LDCE examination to be conducted for the purpose of Chargeman (Technical/Mechanical) on 04.2.2016 and 05.2.2016 or any other date as may be stipulated by the respondents and upon being found selected in the said examination appoint the applicant as Chargeman (Technical/mechanical) and grant all consequential benefits flowing therefrom and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper."
OA 1408/2012:
"to set aside the order dated 9th November 2012 in CVRDE/DRTC/LDCE/12/RP and direct the first respondent to consider the application dated 29.8.2012 of the applicant, who has applied for the post of Senior Technical Assistant 'B' through Limited Departmental Competitive Exam in response to Daily Order Part I No.207 dated 27th August, 2012 and pass such other further order as this Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice."
OA 1665/2013:
"to issue direction directing the respondents to select the candidates for appointment to the post of Chargeman (Technicl/Mechanical) taken part in the LDCE in October 2013 strictly on the basis of the Educational Qualification recognised and affiliated by the All India Council for Technical Education and in accordance with the principles laid down in O.A.No.1408/12, dated 12.4.13 and also the letter of the Ordnance Factory Board in Proc.No.2982/LDCE/CM(T&NT)/2013/A/NG dated 12.9.13 14 OA 1943/2014 & Batch and make appointment on that basis at the earliest or pass any other appropriate order or direction as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. As the issue involved in all these applications is identical and the relief sought for also is similar, these applications have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common order.
3. The OAs 1943/14, 1328/13, 1909/14, 1936/14, 1234/14 & 1327/13 were earlier disposed off by this Bench by a Common Order dt. 08.8.16 and also order passed in OAs 166 & 169 of 2016 dt. 22.11.16 and 21.11.16 respectively, allowing the relief.
4. The respondents challenged the above order dt. 08.8.16, 22.11.16 and 21.11.16 by filing WP No.3666/17 & Batch. The Hon'ble Madras High Court had set aside the order and directed this Court as follows:-
"21. We direct the Central Administrative Tribunal to give reasonable opportunity to the parties to file written response, taking into account the educational qualification prescribed by the Heavy Vehicles Factory for appointment to the post of Chargeman and the observation made by the Hon'ble supreme Court in its judgment dated 13 August 2019 in C.A.No.17922 of 2017. The original applications were filed in the year 2014. We request the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
5. OA 1234/13 was filed by 25 employees who posses 3 year Diploma in Mechanical Engineer from Institutions which are recognised and approved by State Board of Technical Education & Training Department of Technical Education, Government of Tamilnadu and AICTE. They seek to issue a direction to the respondents not to consider employees who possess Diploma obtained from IME or 15 OA 1943/2014 & Batch any other institute which is not recognised by AICTE for promotion to the post of Chargeman in the Factory of the 3rd respondent(R3). On the other hand, OA 1943/14, 1327/13, 1328/13, 1909/14, 1936/14 were filed by the applicants having Diplomas given by IMEI who seeks to consider their qualification equivalent to 3 year Diploma held by the applicants in OA 1234/14. OA 220/2012 was filed to set aside the promotion of respondents 5 to 8 in the said OA as Chargeman.
The 2 short points to be considered are
1) Whether the Diplomas obtained by the applicants from IME is equivalent to the 3 year Diploma prescribed by the Recruitment Rules for the post of Chargeman.
2) What is the impact of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.17922/17 dt. 13.8.2019]? Whether Diploma holders can get the benefit of exemption as orders in the above case.
6. In view of the fact that all the applicants have filed OAs for similar relief and the facts are also similar, for the sake of convenience the OA Nos. 1943/14 & 1234/13 are taken as leading cases.
7. The applicants are working in Skilled Grade in various trades in the Factory of R2. The respondents issued a notification on 25.7.14 for filling up of vacancies of the post of Chargeman (Technical/non-Technical) by way of a Limited Depaertmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The qualification prescribed is a 3 year Diploma or equivalent qualification certificate in respective field duly affiliated by AICTE. The applicants submit that they had Diploma Certificates issued from Institution of 16 OA 1943/2014 & Batch Mechanical Engineers (IME) which is approved by AICTE. The R2 had held that the applicants are not eligible to apply as the certificate issued by IME is not considered as equivalent. The applicants had undergone the Technician Engineers Courses Part I & II (Diploma Level) of the IME. They had produced the letter issued by MHRD dt. 24.11.06 (Annexure A1), a letter obtained under RTI (Annexure A2) stating that the Diploma given by IME is equivalent to Diploma offered by State Board. The copy of the certificate issued by the IME for passing Technician Engineers Examination in June 2013 is produced as Annexure A6. Annexure A5 is another Circular issued by MHRD dt. 06.12.12 stating that students who enrolled upto 31.5.13 will be eligible for consideration for government jobs. A similar case came before the CAT, Hyderabad Bench as OA 1457/13 and the Tribunal allowed the similarly placed applicants appointed and the same was implemented in the Ordnance Factory, Medak as per Annexure A9 order.
8. The respondents appeared and filed their reply mainly contending that the RR prescribes 3 year Diploma or equivalent qualification certificate for the post of Chargeman. According to the respondents, the course undergone by the applicants in IME is not recognised by AICTE and hence they are not eligible to be appointed as such. According to the respondents, they had constituted an expert Committee to look into the question of equivalence and the Committee held that the certificate issued by IME cannot be accepted as AICTE has not approved the Institute of IME for granting certificates as stated. This was clarified by R1 as per letter No.2982/LDCE/CM(Tech)2013/A/NG dt. 12.9.13. The applicants were not 17 OA 1943/2014 & Batch permitted to write examination on the basis of the above letter. It is for the employer to decide which qualification is necessary for a particular work. So, according to them, the certificate issued by IME cannot be considered as equivalent to 3 year Diploma.
9. We have gone through the pleadings and both sides were given the opportunity for further hearing. The counsel for the applicants (who are holding Diplomas given by IME) mainly rely upon the letters issued by MHRD and the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab & Ors. (referred supra) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated as follows:-
"44. However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD3 in consultation with AICTE2 upto 31.5.2013 as is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017. These communications also indicate that all those students who were enrolled upto 31.5.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we have laid down that the Certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled upto 31.5.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enroll themselves so that they could appear at the examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in place by the Central Government itself and the course content as well as the curriculum were reviewed by the AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that after 01.6.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have any effect.
45. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.5.2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after 18 OA 1943/2014 & Batch 01.6.2013. The Certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31.5.2013 shall be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in Central Government."
According to the counsel for the applicant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has exempted students enrolled upto 31.5.2013 from the purview of the order. So, the equivalence has to be granted to the applicants since they had enrolled for the Diploma Course before 31.5.2013 and got the Certificates.
10. According to the counsel, the Institute has been running Section A&B of Associate Membership Course, equivalent to Degree in Mechanical Engineering since 1976 and Part I&II of Technical Engineering Courses which is equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and from a State Polytechnic since 1988. In the year 2002, the Government withdrew its earlier recognition and directed IME to rectify the objections pointed out by AICTE. The Institute thereafter requested along with material to review the order. The materials submitted were got examined by an expert Committee through AICTE and the Government on the basis of report, restored the recognition w.e.f. 16.10.06. Thereafter, IME will run courses based on new syllabus approved by AICTE. So, from the above it can be seen that thereafter the IME was granting the Diplomas on the basis of examinations conducted as per syllabus approved by AICTE. The respondents cannot go against the Government of India, MHRD order at Annexure A1. The OFB is also an organ of the Central Government and it cannot go against the MHRD letters at Annexure A1&5. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered all these aspects while granting exemption in its order. It was also contended that the respondents had earlier appointed Diploma 19 OA 1943/2014 & Batch holders similarly placed and the action of denying the present applicants the benefit is highly discriminatory.
11. The counsel appearing for the applicants in OA 1234/13 would content that the decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India)'s case is not at all applicable to this case. The above case relates to the Degrees awarded by IME and not to the Diplomas in question in this case. According to them, the "Technicians Engineering Course" of IME is not recognised by the AICTE and the letters issued by MHRD cannot be implemented against the RR framed for the post of Chargeman in the respondents' Factory. The rules clearly state that only persons holding 3 year Diploma affiliated to the AICTE or equivalent Certificate can only be considered as eligible qualification. The word 'equivalent' mentioned in the rule can be interpreted on the basis of the earlier qualification i.e. 3 year Diploma Course. So, an equivalent qualification can only be a 3 year duration course. It is for the employer to decide as to what qualification is required for the employees in the Factory. The counsel also would contend that the Note.10 of the Annexure A1 (in OA 1234/13) SRO 13(E) dt. 04.5.89 RR notified under Article 309 of the Constitution clearly states that if there arises any question whether a qualification is equivalent to the prescribed qualification for any post shall be decided by the OFB. The Note.10 is part of the rules and it is given for guidance of the authorities. They are intended to fill in gaps where rules are silent [Tara Singh & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others (1975) 4 SCC 86]. So, the decision of the Board is final in this respect. The OFB has constituted a Committee for considering 20 OA 1943/2014 & Batch the suitability/equivalence of Diplomas given by IME. On the basis of the report of the Committee, the OFB made it clear that such Diplomas are not equivalent and cannot be considered as Diplomas for LDCE examination through letter dt. 12.9.13. According to the counsel, when there is a specific rule giving required qualification, the MHRD cannot override it by issuing Notification dt. 24.11.06 (Annexure A1) and OM dt. 06.12.12 (Annexure A5). It is the Board to take a decision as provided under Note.10 of the Rules.
12. We had carefully gone through the decision of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India)'s case mainly relied upon by the applicants. On a reading of the judgment, it can be seen that the said Appeal arose out of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Pubjab & Haryana in WP No.12909/09 holding that the Membership Certificate granted by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers could not be treated as equivalent to a Degree in Engineering. The Hon'ble Apex Court also, after discussing various aspects of the case, came to the conclusion that "the appellants cannot claim, as a matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree not can it claim that Certificate awarded by it must be reckoned to be equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering".
The Hon'ble High Court was therefore, right in observing that -
"the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai is a registered Society and is thus a Technical Institution and is required to obtain approval from AICTE in respect of its courses in technical subjects. The membership of such institute cannot be treated as equivalent to a degree, as the candidate qualified from such institute cannot be said to be at par with the members of Institution of Engineers established under the Statute (para 208). There is no document produced 21 OA 1943/2014 & Batch or alleged that Respondent No.4 has permanent recognition from any Council or Board in respect of its courses. Therefore, the degrees or the membership granted by respondent No.4 cannot be treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering.(para
211)."
After considering the notifications of the Central Government giving equivalence dt. 06.12.12 and 31.5.2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted an exception stating in favour of the students enrolled upto 31.5.13 and benefit in terms of notification dt. 06.12.12 and public notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. So, from the above, it can be seen that the Apex Court was considering the equivalence of Degree Certificates of IME. There is no mention regarding the Diploma Certificates issued by IME in the said paragraph (para 44 of judgment). In para 45, the Apex Court clearly states as follows:-
"In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.5.2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after 01.6.2013. The Certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31.5.2013 shall be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in Central Government."
So, on the facts of this case, it can be seen that the dispute decided in the above case was regarding the claim of equivalence to degrees put forward by the applicant. The question relating to the certificates of Technician Engineers as equivalent to a 3 year Diploma was not considered by the Apex Court. So, we find merit in the contention of the applicants in OA 1234/13 & Others and respondents in the OA. The counsel appearing for the applicants in OA 1234/13 Smt.Nagasila would also content that 'what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly". According to her, after the inception of AICTE, the sole repository for granting recognition in technical 22 OA 1943/2014 & Batch education is vested in AICTE. According to (AICTE Regulations 1994 Clause 4(b)) "(b) no course or programme shall be introduced by any Technical Institution, University including a deemed University or University Department or College; or
(c) no technical institutions, Universities or deemed Universities or University Departments or College shall continue to admit students for Degree or Diploma courses or programmes;
(d) no approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased or varied; except with the approval of the Council."
It is submitted that AICTE has not recognised any of the courses of the IME. As per Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, the power to grant degrees can be exercised only by a university established under a statute. Here MHRD only has given recognition to the Diplomas given by IME. Since there is already a statutory authority AICTE for granting recognition it has to be done by that statutory authority.
13. We find merit in the argument of the counsel in this respect. We do not find merit in the contentions of the counsel for the applicant Mr.Karthik Mukundan in OA 1943/13, relying on the Notification issued by MHRD regarding recognition to the Diplomas issued by IME.
14. The counsel for the applicant in OA 1234/13 would contend that it is well settled principle of service law that it is the prerogative of the employer to fix eligible qualifications and equivalence since employer is best placed to determine what qualification and skill sets are required for a particular post and whether any particular qualification satisfies those requirements. Mr.Kishore Kumar,SPC, appearing for Official respondents would submit that the post of Chargemen (Technical) is a key post in Ordnance Factories which is having supervisory duties on 23 OA 1943/2014 & Batch production activity during manufacture of parts for Tanks etc. Practical knowledge and hands on experience is very crucial in quality of keeping the arms produced in the Ordnance Factories. It is because of that the OFB RR insist on a 3 year Diploma Certificate from AICTE approved institutions. Diplomas obtained through Distance Education is not suitable for Ordnance Factories. The OFB had appointed a Committee to look into the matter and they gave a report stating that certificate courses given by IME is not sufficient and it is not equivalent to a 3 year Diploma Course.
15. We had gone through the RR notified under Article 309 of the Constitution produced as Annexure A1 dt. 4th May 1989 and amendment Notification dt. 27.5.03 (Annexure A3) produced in OA 1234/13. The Educational Qualification for the post of Chargeman (Mechanical) is "must possess 3 years Diploma or equivalent qualification Certificate in the respective field duly affiliated by AICTE". On a reading of the said rule, what we can understand is the applicant should possess a 3 year Diploma or equivalent qualification Certificate in the respective filed affiliated by AICTE. Since the word 'Affiliated' is not possible with AICTE, we have to read it as recognised by AICTE for giving a proper meaning. Admittedly, there is no Equivalence Committee constituted by the government to decide whether the certificate issued by IME is equivalent or not. Anyhow, we have to interpret the word 'equivalent qualification' with the previous qualification i.e. 3 year Diploma Course given earlier. So, the "equivalent qualification" can only be interpreted as a Certificate/Diploma issued after 3 year course. Admittedly, the Technical 24 OA 1943/2014 & Batch Engineering Course of IME is not a 3 year course and it cannot be considered for appointment as per RR for Chargeman. RR has to be interpreted strictly and the Diplomas given by IME cannot be considered as a 3 year Diploma Course. The OFB had also decided accordingly and we do not find anything illegal or arbitrary. It is also to be noted that Note.10 gives authority to OFB to take a decision on the question of equivalence also. When the rules clearly state the qualification as 3 year Diploma or equivalent qualification recognised by AICTE, no other interpretation can be given by the OFB also. Any other certificate having less than 3 year course can be considered only after amending the rules. So, we find merit in the contentions of the counsel for the applicants in OA 1234/13 and the counsel for the Official respondents in this case. The counsel for the applicants in OA 1234/13 had cited the case of Siva Kumar & Others v. State of Haryana (CWP No.20616/2013) in support of her above arguments. She also cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukul Kumar Sharma v. AICTE & Others wherein the Degrees and Diplomas granted by IGNOU was considered valid upto the year 2009-10. The case of IME cannot be given such a benefit as it is not a statutory body.
16. Another contention raised on behalf of applicants in OA 1943/14 is that some of the Ordnance Factories had permitted similar Diploma holders to be appointed as Chargeman in their units. But this argument was countered by the counsel for the applicants in OA 1234/13 stating the fact that some ineligible candidates were wrongly treated as eligible cannot be a ground for giving the benefit to the applicants in OA 1943/14 and similarly placed persons. The counsel for the applicants in OA 25 OA 1943/2014 & Batch 1234/13 invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Bihar Public Services Commission v. Kamini [reported in 2007 (5) SCC 519] wherein it was held that "An illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated under the so called 'equality doctrine'. That is not the sweep of Article 14". We follow the said decision in this respect. Any illegality cannot be considered for granting relief on grounds of equality.
17. On the basis of the discussion made above, we hold that "the Technicians Engineering Course (Diploma) from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (IME) cannot be considered as equivalent qualification prescribed under the RR for the post of Chargeman under the OFB".
18. In the result, OA 1234/13 is allowed. OA Nos. 1943/14, 169/2016, 1328/2013, 1327/2013, 1909/2014, 1936/2014, 166/2016, 1408/2012 & 1665/2013 will stand dismissed. Consequently MA 729/13 also stands dismissed. No costs.
(T.Jacob) (P.Madhavan)
Member(A) Member(J)
19.03.2020
/G/