Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Gaurav Shankhdhar vs Union Of India on 25 May, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2236/2008 Monday, this the 25th day of May 2009 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri Gaurav Shankhdhar s/o Shri Netra Pal Sharma r/o D-1/121, Mansa Ram Park Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri S C Juneja) Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Labour & Employment Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi-1 2. National Council for Vocational Training through Director General of Employment & Training Ministry of Labour & Employment Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi-1 3. Dte. Of Training & Technical Education through Principal Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi Muni Maya Ram Marg Pitam Pura, New Delhi 4. Ministry of Railways through its Secretary Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-1 5. Railway Recruitment Control Board through its Chairman Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-1 6. Railway Recruitment Board Gorakhpur (UP) ..Respondents (By Advocates: Ms. Jasmine Ahmed for respondents 1 & 2 Sh Aditya Chhibber for Ms. Jyoti Singh for respondent 3 Sh R L Dhawan for respondents 4 to 6) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In denial of appointment arbitrarily, malafidely violating Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, interference is permissible in judicial review, as ruled by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47.
3. Applicant, who applied through an advertisement issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for the post of Health Inspector III/ Malaria Inspector III in 2006, was B.Sc. with Chemistry plus one year diploma of Health / Sanitation Inspector. As the qualifications were not found apt as per the rules, clarification was sought from the Ministry of Labour & Employment by the Railways as to whether the qualification possessed by the applicant is equivalent to the qualification stipulated under the rules. On 1.6.2007, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment communicated to the Director, National Industrial Training Centre that as after 1959 the diploma in Craftsmanship awarded has been done-away with, the certificate issued in these trades shall hold good and equivalent to the diploma.
4. In the above backdrop, learned counsel for applicant would contend that vide letter dated 4.7.2008, which is annexed in the reply filed by respondents 1 & 2, it has been clarified that equivalency as to the certificate possessed by the applicant is at par with one year diploma as desired for the post and for which recruitment was held by the Railway Board. The aforesaid information by an order dated 30.12.2008 on clarification by the Ministry of Labour & Employment was also communicated to the other respondents. Despite this, non-consideration of the applicant for appointment in the selection held in 2006 is the gravamen of the charge by the applicant, as his counsel contends that the applicant has been wrongly deprived of his appointment.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent 4 to 6 vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that whatever has been stipulated under the recruitment rules have been followed and since the applicant did not possess the diploma, he was not eligible. As such, his candidature was cancelled, for which a communication made has not been challenged by the applicant on an information furnished to him under RTI of 2005.
6. Learned counsel respondents 4 to 6 would rely upon the decisions of Apex Court in State of Punjab & others v. Swaran Kumar, 2008 (3) SLJ SC 164 and Sunita Agarwal v. State of Haryana, (2000) 2 SCC 168 to contend that the procedure adopted for appointment is strictly inconformity with the rules and as no prescribed qualification or certificate has been stipulated under the rules, applicant, being ineligible, his candidature has been rightly cancelled.
7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.
8. As regards laying down qualification for the post under the rules, which are framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being an expert, is the prerogative of the respondents to frame the rules and set out qualifications, cannot be disputed. However, when a qualification on diploma has been discontinued by the competent authority, i.e., the National Industrial Training Centre, which comes under the Ministry of Labour & Employment, their acknowledgement as to the fact that since the diploma has been discontinued from 1959, what is in vogue as equivalency to diploma is the certificate issued in certain trades. As such, certificate possessed by the applicant has to be treated as qualification equivalent to the qualification stipulated by the Railway Board under the rules.
9. In the above scenario, we are not encroaching upon in any manner the qualification laid down by the respondents but we find, on the basis of the qualification possessed by the applicant, i.e., certificate, which is not being issued by the Railways but by the Ministry of Labour & Employment under National Industrial Training Centre. These authorities are the competent in law to vouch for these certificates and to lay down equivalence as to the qualification in diploma and certificate. Being an expert body, once it has been ruled that diploma since being discontinued, a certificate is an apt qualification and an information to this effect once having been conveyed to the Railways, their hurry and undue haste in canceling the candidature of the applicant even without waiting the opinion of an expert body, which they have voluntarily sought from the Ministry of Labour & Employment, shows that cancellation of applicants candidature was neither reasonable nor in good faith.
10. Insofar as the qualification is concerned, the Apex Court in Basic Education Board, U.P. v. Upendra Rai & others, 2008 (1) SCC (L&S) 771 ruled that any equivalence in the matter of qualification, the policy cannot be interfered as an administrative authority laying down qualification for equivalence is the prerogative of the Ministry of Labour & Employment and National Industrial Training Centre.
11. As we are satisfied that the applicant in equivalence of the rules was qualified, being eligible to be considered for the post of Health Inspector III / Malaria Inspector III and non-consideration of his candidature and cancellation in turn by the respondents is not apt in law and this omission and commission on their part is to be set aside.
12. Resultantly, OA is allowed to the extent that now the respondents, deeming the applicant to be qualified and eligible under the rules, would subject him for a selection and in the event he successfully qualifies, he shall be considered for appointment as Health Inspector III / Malaria Inspector III within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/