Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Neethu B. Sebastian vs Union Of India on 30 June, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 970 of 2012
&
Original Application No. 737 of 2013
Tuesday, this the 30th day of June, 2015
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. R. Ramanujam, Administrative Member
1. Original Application No. 970 of 2012
Neethu B. Sebastian, aged 30 years,
W/o. B. Sebastian, Junior Clerk,
Office of the Sr. Section Engineer/
Permanent Way/Southern Railway/Alappuzha,
Residing at 'Vadakkum Muri' House, Mullackal
Ward, Alappuzha HPO, Alappuzha District,
Pin : 688 001. Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town PO,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Head Quarters Office, Park Town PO, Chennai 600 003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram 14.
4. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Sumathi Dandapani, Sr. along with
Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil)
2. Original Application No. 737 of 2013
Bobby Joseph, aged 42 years,
S/o. K.A. Kurian, Clerk, Office of the
Sr. Section Engineer/Permanent Way/
Southern Railway/Chalakkudi RS & PO,
Residing at Kattokkaran House, Ollur PO,
Trichur District, Pin : 680 306. Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town PO,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway,
Head Quarters Office, Park Town PO, Chennai 600 003.
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division,
Thiruvananthapuram 14.
4. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Sumathi Dandapani, Sr. along with
Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose)
These applications having been heard on 18.06.2015, the Tribunal on
30.06.2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member The applicants in these cases seek declaration that they are entitled to be considered for promotion against the graduation quota vacancies of Office Superintendents notified in Annexure A1 (in OA No. 970 of 2012) and Annexure A8 (in OA No. 737 of 2013). They have also sought to quash the list to the extent it does not include the name of the applicants as eligible candidates. They contend that eligibility criteria shown in Annexure A1 notification to the extent it says that the serving ministerial staff of Department (except Accounts and RPF) should have the service shown therein and should possess qualification of graduation degree either under 11+1+3 years stream or under 10+2+3 years stream from a recognized University and the further clause that degree obtained (under graduate or post graduate) directly from open university or such other institutions without 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 scheme will not be reckoned as eligible and such applications will be summarily rejected, is illegal, irrational and thus liable to be quashed.
2. In OA No. 970 of 2012 the applicant contends that he is presently working as Junior Clerk in PB-1 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900/-. Notification was issued inviting applications for filling up 20% LDCE quota vacancies for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent in PB-2 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-. Accordingly, applications were submitted. The applicant was denied consideration on the premise that the degree certificate obtained by the applicant was through correspondence course without following 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 pattern.
3. The applicant in OA No. 970 of 2012 contends that she was studying in Plus-II under Mahatma Gandhi University. Considering her national performance in the game (Volley Ball) she was selected under the Sports quota and was posted as a Junior Clerk in the Western Railway Headquarters Office at Mumbai Church Gate. She joined there on 30.12.1998. Hence, the applicant had to discontinue her pre-degree course. After 13 years she was transferred to Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division with effect from 10.6.2011. She further contends that after she joined the Railways and after an entrance examination, she was admitted for correspondence course for the degree of Bachelor in Arts - Sociology by Annamalai University recognized by University Grants Commission. She was finally awarded a degree of Bachelor of Arts as evidenced by Annexure A3. The 20% direct recruitment quota was notified so as to fill up the same by serving graduates fulfilling certain eligibility criteria. The name of the applicant is not included in the list of eligible candidates because she did not obtain graduation degree following 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 pattern. The notification to the extent that includes the aforesaid condition that the degree should be following 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 pattern is illegal. The only stipulation by the University Grants Commission is that one should have qualified in the entrance test conducted by the University before being admitted to the degree course. The applicant was admitted to the degree course after an entrance examination and therefore, she is at par with other graduates.
4. The applicant in OA No. 737 of 2013 contends: He was working as Junior Clerk in PB-1 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900/- in the office of Senior Section Engineer/Permanent Way, Southern Railway, Chalakkudi. After his matriculation from the Model Boys High School, Thrissur the applicant completed two year pre-degree course from St. Thomas College, Thrissur. Subsequently he underwent three year degree course from Shri Krishna College, Guruvayoor during 1988 to 1991. He completed the three years of degree course also but he could not write the examination. He joined the Railways as a Junior Clerk on 4.12.1994 in Chennai Division of Southern Railway. He was promoted as a Senior Clerk and later he was transferred as a Junior Clerk on his request from Chennai to Trivandrum Division. While so the applicant took B.A (Bachelor of Arts) degree in Economics from Periyar University of Tamilnadu. It is a university recognized by the University Grants Commission. Only those who have completed regular plus-II classes and those who have completed at least two years regular course of degree are eligible to appear in the examination and therefore, the degree qualification obtained by the applicant is a valid one for the various promotional posts and for direct recruitment. 20% of the direct recruitment quota is to be filled up by serving graduates fulfilling certain eligibility criteria. Applicant who is a Junior Clerk with 18 years of service and a graduate is eligible as per Annexure A5 Railway Board order and so the applicant claims that he should be included in the list of eligible candidates treating the degree obtained by him from Periyar University as a valid degree for the purpose of considering his inclusion towards 20% of the vacancies.
5. Respondents contend as follows:-
5.1. Even prior to the recommendation of the VIth Central Pay Commission, direct recruitment quota to the extent of 20% of the cadre strength of Office Superintendent Grade-II in scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/-
was set apart to be filled by serving graduates. In the permanent negotiating machinery discussions at Railway Board level, the demand of the staff to divert the direct recruitment quota vacancies as LDCE was agreed to, in order to afford an opportunity to all serving graduates to get the benefit. Accordingly Railway Board issued Annexure A4 letter dated 17.6.2005 directing that 20% of sanctioned strength of Office Superintendents in the scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- is to be treated as LDCE quota. Railway Board stipulated the eligibility criteria for LDCE of which one stipulation is that the candidate must possess the minimum educational qualification of graduation. The serving ministerial staff who possess the qualification of graduation should have obtained degree either under 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 years stream from a recognized University. It was further made clear that the employees who obtained graduation or post graduation degree directly from open university or other institutions without 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 years stream, will not be considered and their application will be summarily rejected without intimation. As against paragraphs 2.0 and 2.1 of the relevant notification, one of the recognized Unions had represented that the degree obtained by any mode can be considered and those who obtained the degree without 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 should also be considered for LDCE selection. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, the competent authority accepted the representation that if the graduation/post graduation certificate is from a recognized University/College there can be no objection. A clarification was issued stating that in partial modification of paragraph 2.0 of the notification dated 26.10.2010, candidates with graduation certificates obtained from recognized University can also apply for the selection. The applicants in both cases did not obtain degree by a formal education completing the basic course of pre-degree or plus two as stipulated by University Grants Commission. The degree obtained through non-formal education mode without qualifying pre-degree or plus-II course is not recognized by the University Grants Commission. A clear indication was made in the notification that degree obtained without following 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 years stream is not valid.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents and perused the pleadings and records of the case.
7. The points for consideration are whether the degree obtained by the applicants without following 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 pattern should be treated as valid degree and whether the notification containing contrary eligibility criteria is liable to be quashed ?
8. Annexure R(a) [in OA No. 970 of 2012] dated 25.11.1985 is the University regulations regarding the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of First Degree through formal education. Clause (2) therein relates to admission which reads:-
'1. No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1 st Degree Course in these faculties unless he has successfully completed 12 years school through an examination conducted by a Board/University. The admission shall be made on merit on the basis of criteria notified by the institutions after taking into account the reservation order issued by the government from time to time.
2. Student enrollment shall be in accordance with the number of teachers and physical facilities available.
3. No student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree unless he has successfully completed a three year course; this degree may be called the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.
(General/Honours/Special) degree as the case may be:'
9. Annexure R(b) pertains to the grant of the First Degree through non- formal/distance education. That was also issued on the same date; namely 25.11.1985. As per Annexure R(b) the University prescribed minimum standards of instructions for the grant of First Degree through non-formal/distance education in the faculties of Arts, Commerce, Social Science etc. Annexure R(b) says that the instructions shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, and every institution deemed to be University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. Clause (2) therein deals with admission of students which reads thus:
'1. No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1 st Degree Course through nonformal/distance education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/University. In case there is no previous academic record, he shall be eligible for admission if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the University provided that he is not below the age of 21 years on July 1 of the year of admission.
2. No student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree unless he has successfully completed a three year course; this degree may be called the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.
(General Honours/Special) degree as the case may be.'
10. Annexure R(c) is UGC (Minimum Standards of Instructions for the Grant of the First Degree through Formal Education) Regulation, 2003 issued by the University Grants Commission. It is stated therein that the said notification, Annexure R(c), was in supersession of notifications Nos. F.1-117/83(CP), dated 25.11.1985 and F.1-117/83(CP), dated 25.11.1985. They are the very same numbers of the notification shown in Annexure R(a) and R(b) as well. Therefore, Annexure R(c) cannot be said to be a notification in supersession of Annexure R(b) which relates to non-formal education, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits. Clause (2) of Annexure R(c) deals with admission. 2.1 therein reads thus:
'No student shall be eligible for admission to a first degree programme in any of the faculties unless he/she has successfully passed the examination conducted by a Board/University at the +2 level of schooling (either through formal schooling for 12 years, or through open school system) or its equivalent.' In clause 2.1 in Annexure R(c) no mention is made as to whether the student will be eligible for admission if he has passed the entrance test conducted by the University as mentioned in clause 2.1 in Annexure R(b).
11. Annexure.R(c) - UGC (Minimum Standards of Instructions for the Graduate of the First Degree through Formal Education( Regulations 2003 was issued in supersession of notification No.F.1-117/1983(CP) dated 25.11.1985, notification No.F.1-117/1983-CP dated 30.5.1986 and notification No.F.1-117/1983(CP) dated December, 1998. It is vehemently argued by the learned the counsel for the applicant that Annexure. R1 (c) does not say that it was in supersession of Annexure. R.(b). But it is not stated that it is in supersession of Annexure. R.(a) alone. But the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that since there is no mention with regard to the clauses in R(b) which makes a student eligible for admission to the first degree course in the faculties mentioned therein by passing an entrance test conducted by the University, if he has not completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board or University, it it has to be found that Annexure. R.(b) notification was not touched or superseded by Annexure. R(c). It is also pointed out that a reading of Annexure R.(c) would further make it clear that provisions were made therein regarding reservation etc., which would be applicable only in respect of a regular course of study mentioned in Annexure. R.(a) and not in respect of distant education/open university in respect of which Annexure R.(b) notification was issued. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this point, namely, that Annexure R(c) was not in supersession of Annexure R(b) but only in supersession of Annexure (R(a) was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court and so the decision in Ramesh's case very much relied upon by the respondents cannot be pressed into service to decide this case.
12. It is vehemently argued by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents that a clear indication has been made in the notification that the degrees obtained without 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 stream are not eligible. Such a condition had to be incorporated so as to identify the degree holders who have obtained degrees through formal education as approved by the University Grants Commission and to exclude other employees who have obtained degrees without completing the basic course; namely 11+1+3 or 10+2+3. It is further submitted that the recognition and authorization given by University Grants Commission is only to the courses where the directions regarding the imparting of education is either under 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 stream.
13. It is pointed out that so far as the applicant in OA No. 737 of 2013 is concerned he has not undergone three years degree course but in a single sitting he could obtain degree from Periyar University which can never be treated as equivalent to degree obtained by formal education. It is to eliminate such degree obtained otherwise than by recourse to the pattern mentioned earlier, such a provision was incorporated in the notification. It cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational, the learned Sr. counsel for the respondents submitted. The applicant in OA 970/2012 contends that she was studying in +2 under Mahatma Gandhi University. Admittedly she did not complete her course. It is also admitted that several years thereafter she got a degree of Bachelor of Arts from Annamalai University, It is such certificates issued by the Annamalai University which was the subject matter of attack as can be seen from the decision of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Ramesh's case. It is further argued that it was because Universities were offering degree certificates without any distinction between the regular course imparting and degrees offered in contravention of the regulations, the respondents have incorporated the conditions to exclude those employees who had obtained degrees from such Universities without following the educational pattern of 11+1+3 or 10+2+3. Only those employees who are fulfilling the eligibility conditions can be considered for promotions. Therefore, according to the respondents the question of right to be considered for promotion does not arise as long as the applicant did not complete the degree and obtain the degree certificate through the regular stream as mentioned earlier.
14. The learned counsel for the respondents has very much relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Ramesh Vs. Sibi Madan Gabriel and others and Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, 2009(4) SCC 590. The appellant therein; Ramesh who was holding a diploma in film technology subsequently obtained MA degree in open university system in an examination held by the Annamalai University. The Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court disposed of the Writ Appeals holding that Ramesh was not eligible to be considered for the post of Principal as the MA degree obtained by him through open university system, without there being a first bachelors degree, was not a valid one. Consequently the State Government was directed to take steps to fill up the post of Principal in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same Ramesh as well as the University approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that as Distance Education Council (DEC) of IGNOU being an authority constituted under Statute 28 of the Open University Act, having granted post facto approval to the courses of studies of the university, the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court is liable to be set aside. It was argued that from the statement of objects and reasons of the Open University Act it is evident that parliament made a distinction between formal and non-formal education and UGC Act being concerned with formal education, IGNOU and particularly DEC had the requisite jurisdiction to lay down syllabus as also duration of such courses. It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the UGC Act comes within the purview of Entry 66 of list of I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and that UGC Act was enacted to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in universities and for that purpose, to establish a UGC. Referring to Section 22 of that Act it was pointed out that right of conferring and granting of degree shall be exercised only by a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
15. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the UGC, regulation- 1985 was issued. Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 states that no student shall be eligible for admission to the first degree course through non formal/distant education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by the Board/university and in case there is no previous academic record he shall be eligible for admission if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the university provided that he is not below the age of 25 years on July 1 of the year of admission. It was argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that offering course of studies under open university system was in line with the system followed by IGNOU in terms whereof a student who had completed plus two(+2) or undergone the preparatory course and passed the written test become eligible to join the undergraduate programme of his or her choice. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the facts dealt with in Ramesh's case cited supra are different from the facts of this case. It was stated that in that case Ramesh had obtained post graduate degree (MA degree) without obtaining a graduate degree. Admittedly Ramesh was only a diploma holder. Though the facts may be different, the contention that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is totally inapplicable to the facts of this case cannot be countenanced. In the case cited supra, the question was whether the Distant Education Council has the requisite jurisdiction to grant post facto approval in terms of its letter dated 21.7.2008. In Paragraph 41 it was held by the Supreme Court:
'Was the alternative system envisaged under the Open University Act in substitution of the formal system, is the question. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standard of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal system and an informal system is in the mode and manner in which education is imparted. The UGC Act was enacted for effectuating coordination and determination of standards in universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted must be given full effect.' It was also held that provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open and that its powers are very broad. It was further observed that the regulations framed by the UGC in terms of clauses (e) (f) (g) and (h) of sub section (1) of section 26 are of wide amplitude and that they apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional universities. Section 26 (1)(f) empowers the UGC to make regulations by notifications in terms of Section 26, the minimum standards of instructions for grant of any degree by any University.
Therefore, the contention that the Railway Board was not justified in following the guidelines issued by the UGC in that behalf is unsound and untenable.
16. The other point that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case was whether the purported post facto approval granted to the Annamalai University of programmes offered through distant modes is valid. It was held that the degrees become invalidated in terms of the provisions of the UGC Act and when mandatory requirements have been violated in terms of provisions of one Act, an authority under another Act could not have validated the same. It was held that the provisions of the UGC Act are not in conflict with the provisions of the Open University Act and it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the UGC Act shall prevail over the Open University Act.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is a rationale behind in prescribing the eligibility criteria in Annexure.A.1 which prescribes that serving ministerial staff should possess qualification of graduation (the degree) either under 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 from a recognized university and also the condition that degree obtained by Under Graduate or Post Graduate directly from Open University or other institutions without recourse to the stream mentioned above will be rejected. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the intention of the Railway Board was to encourage the employees to acquire educational qualifications during the period of employment or to promote those persons who had already acquired educational qualification. That does not mean that the intention is to equate employees who had, by bypassing the regular course of educational system namely 11+1+3 or 10+2+3, obtained graduation degree directly from the open university. The very purpose would be defeated by treating both degrees as equal, because employees who obtained degrees by undergoing the regular course of 10+2+3 or 11+1+3 after taking much pain cannot be equated to persons who directly obtained graduate certificates from the open universities. The discrimination cannot be said to be irrational or unreasonable so as to contend that the eligibility criteria fixed by the employer is to be quashed. The degree certificates obtained by he applicants cannot be treated on a par with those awarded under regular stream for any appointment to the post in public service.
18. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra (Ramesh's case) that no relaxation can be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment of a degree. It is quite evident that the respondents had issued the notification prescribing the qualification namely the degree certificate obtained through normal stream 11+1+ 3 or 10+2+3 since that is the degree recognized by the UGC for the purpose of appointment and considering the quality of education, the mode and manner in which it was imparted etc.
19. The decision of a Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 4.11.2011 in W.P(C) No. 27554/2010 and of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala and others Vs. Thulasibai reported in 2011(3) KLC 65 cannot come to the rescue of the applicant since the facts dealt with therein are entirely different and also in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case cited supra.
20. An exactly identical case as in this case arose before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.12532/2013 (Kamala Kannaiah and another Vs. Registrar, C.A.T and others). The petitioners therein were working as Clerks in Chennai Division of Southern Railway. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 2 nd respondent therein, applications were invited for filling up the vacancies of Office Superintendent under 20% LDCE quota. Subsequently it was cancelled buy notification dated 20.5.2011 on the ground that divisions and units have not assessed the vacancies uniformly. A fresh notification was issued on 30.12.2011 to fill up 253 vacancies. The petitioner therein applied thereto but their names were not included on the ground that they had obtained degree from the open university without 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 stream. Thus applications were filed seeking direction to the respondents to include the names of those petitioners for 20% LDEC selection for the post of Office Superintendents contending that they were eligible as per the Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)1-2005/EMI/20 dated 17.6.2005. They challenged paragraph 2 of the notification dated 30.12.2011. The very same contentions which were raised before this Tribunal were raised by the respondents in that case. It was contended that the employees who did not possess degree without passing the plus two are not eligible for selection on promotion to the post of Office Superintendent and the only eligibility for the said post is a degree from a recognized university under 10+2+3 or 11+1+3 stream. The applications filed by them before the Tribunal were rejected. That was challenged in the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. In that case the petitioners were permitted to write the examination pursuant to the earlier notification which was subsequently withdrawn and so they contended that they should not be held ineligible based on the subsequent notification. It was contended by the respondents that the condition, as mentioned in para 2.1 of the notification dated 26.10.2010 was prescribed, that serving ministerial staff of all departments (except Accounts and RPF) who are possessing the graduation degree are eligible for the selection. It was also stated that the employees should have obtained degree either under 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 stream from a recognized university. It was prescribed that the employees who obtained UG degree or Post Graduate degree directly from the open university or other university without 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 stream will not be considered. That is exactly the case dealt with herein. There the respondents contended that it is the discretion of the employer to recognize such UG courses acquired under the open university system or distance education made as equivalent to UG degree secured after regular mode, either under 10+2+3 or 11+1+3 steam for the purpose of recruitment. As in the two cases herein the applicants therein had not completed 12 years of schooling either 10+2 or 11+1 stream, Ultimately it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras that the Railway/respondents Department are the final authority to fix the eligibility criteria unless the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to public policy,. It was also held that there is no ambiguity with regard to the qualification fixed by the respondents.
21. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that in Kamala Kanniah's case (WP No.12532/2013 cited supra) it was not the case of the petitioners therein that the qualification prescribed in the notification was contrary to any statutory provision or rules. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that in this case the applicants have contended that the qualification prescribed in the notification is contrary to the Railway Board's earlier order and as such the decision cited supra has to be distinguished. We find no merit in that contention as well. As held in the cases cited supra the Railway Board/respondents are the final authority to fix the eligibility criteria. There is no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the eligibility criteria fixed by the respondents. The discrimination, if any, shown in the matter of holding the degrees obtained otherwise than through 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 stream, (treating the degrees obtained through open university) ineligible and that it cannot be reckoned at par with the degree obtained following the normal stream of 11+1+3 or 10+2+3, cannot be stated as unreasonable. It does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or irrationality.
22. In the light of the decisions cited supra, we have no hesitation to hold that the applicants are not entitled to be considered for promotion against the 20% graduation quota of the Office Superintendent. Hence both these applications are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(R. RAMANUJAM) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER sa/kspps