Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Ghasi Pradhan vs Railway on 24 November, 2021
1 O.A./051/00088/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI
O.A./051/00088/2021
Date :24th November, 2021
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. M.C. VERMA, MEMBER (Judl.)
HON'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER(Admn.)
Ghasi Pradhan, son of Aghana Pradhan, resident of Village - Koisara,
P.O. Koisara, P.S. Lapung, District - Ranchi - 835234.
...............Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Shirsh Majumdar.
Versus
1. The Union of India through Chairman, Railway Recruitment
Board, Patna and Muzaffarpur, Office at Mahendru Ghat, P.O. &
P.S. Mahendru Ghat, Patna - 800004.
2. The Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Lichi Bagan, P.O. &
P.S. - Muzaffarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001 (Bihar).
...............Respondents
By Advocate : Shri Prabhat Kumar
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per Mr. M.C. Verma, Member (Judl.)
1. The matter is at final stage of hearing. In instant OA applicant has challenged the legality of order dated 23/7/2019 whereby his candidature for Assistant Loco Pilot (Electrical/Diesel) in Railway has been cancelled stating that he does not possesses the required qualification.
2. The crux of facts, as has been set out in pleading of OA are that pursuant to Advertisement No.1/2006-07, issued by Railway Recruitment Board, Mahendru Ghat, Patna, applicant who was having Diploma in Production Engineering did apply for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, participated in the selection procedure and was declared qualified but was not given appointment on the grounds that he was not fulfilling eligibility criteria for appointment to that post. The 2 O.A./051/00088/2021 contention of the applicant is that Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was there in the prescribed qualification for the post of ALP, he was having Diploma in Production Engineering which is equivalent qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and hence denial for appointment is illegal and his candidature has wrongly been rejected by the Respondents Department. It has also been pleaded that some other persons having the qualification only of Diploma in Production Engineering has been appointed as ALP by the respondents and, therefore, discrimination has been made against the applicant.
3. After issuance of notice Respondents have filed a detailed reply and mutatis-mutandis the stand of the respondents is that eligibility criteria and qualification were mentioned in advertisement, the applicant was not having any of the requisite qualification prescribed which made him eligible for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. That at initial stage no thorough scrutiny could be made so he was issued Admit Card for taking the test and was yielded successful but at final stage it detected that he was not fulfilling eligibility criteria and hence his candidature was cancelled and he was not given appointment.
4. Heard. Learned counsel Shri Shirsh Majumdar, appearing on behalf of applicant, did argue at length and his main contention confined to pleas that Diploma in Production Engineering is equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineer and that some persons who were not having qualification prescribed in advertisement but were having Diploma in Production Engineering have been given 3 O.A./051/00088/2021 appointment by the Department. He referring Annexure - R/2, a document placed on record by respondents submits that if applicant was not fulfilling requisite qualification, his application had to be rejected at initial stage but application of applicant was not rejected, he was issued admit card, he was allowed to participate in selection procedure and was declared successful and hence denial of appointment cannot be said to be justified.
5. Learned counsel for respondents, Shri Prabhat Kumar Advocate vehemently opposed the OA stating that the it is is meritless. He urged that it is for the employer to decide about the qualification and eligibility, it is the employer who has to decide as to what qualification a candidate needs to possess to discharge the duty of the post and that the Tribunal or the Court should not indulge in directing or changing the prescribed qualification. He urged that taking note of situation, as has emerged now in OA in hand Railway Board had issued directions to reject all such applications at initial level, he referred resolution of the Railway Board dated 29.06.2006 (Annexure- R/2) and explained that because of some inadvertence candidature of applicant could not be rejected at initial stage but that alone does not entitle the applicant for appointment, when he is not having the prescribed qualification. He also did contend that otherwise also it cannot be said that Diploma in Production Engineering is equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and for sake of argument even if it is assumed so, the employer cannot be compelled to take in job a person who is having equivalent qualification.
6. Considered the submission advanced. Circular dated 4 O.A./051/00088/2021 29.06.2006, referred to by both parties to lis verbatim reads as under:-
" Government of India Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) No.E(NG)-II/2005/RR-1/8 New Delhi,Dt.29.6.2006.
The General Manager (P), All Zonal Railways/Production Units, Chairmen/RRBs.
Sub: Recruitment to Group 'C' & 'D' posts on the Railways -
Adherence to prescribed qualification in recruitment from open market.
"Instances have come to the notice of this office that for the posts on the Railways where the prescribed qualification is a Degree/Diploma in Engineering or ITI/Act Apprenticeship in relevant trade, candidates in possession of qualification other than the prescribed one i.e. in related or allied subject are getting chances to appear in the written test due to the relaxed practice of scrutiny adopted by Railway Recruitment Board(s). This is leading to unnecessary litigation when candidature of such candidates after getting through in the written test is cancelled on the ground of not possessing the prescribed qualification.
This office has taken a serious note of the situation and it is advised that no change/modification in the prescribed qualification is allowed. Only candidates in possession of qualification in line with qualification prescribed by Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) shall be allowed to take the examination and the candidates possessing allied or related qualification should not be allowed to take written examination and their application should be rejected at the time of initial scrutiny.
Also, Zonal Railways/Production Units are directed to ensure that indents for Group 'C' posts shall be placed with Railway Recruitment Boards strictly mentioning the qualification in line with qualification prescribed by Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). The aforesaid instructions shall be adhered to strictly and any deviation from these instructions will be viewed seriously. Hindi version will follow.
Please acknowledge receipt.
(This disposes of Southern Railway's letter No.P(R) 563/Miscellaneous dated 09.03.2005 and East Central Railway's letter No.ECR/HRD/Rectt/RRB/Indent/Pt.I dated 06.06.2006) Sd/-
(Ashok Kumar) Director Estt. (N)-II Railway Board."
7. The spirit of the Circular is that person who is not having prescribed qualification; his application needs to be rejected at initial stage. It is evident from said Circular that candidates in possession of qualification other than the prescribed one i.e. related 5 O.A./051/00088/2021 or allied qualification be not allowed to participate in selection procedure.
8. The issue in hand pertains to appointment of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) relating to Advertisement Notice No. RRB/ MFP/1/ 2006-07 published on 06/01/2007. Vide said Advertisement applications were invited for various posts, including for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. The requisite qualifications for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot were "Matriculation+(i) Act apprenticeship ITI passed in trades: (1) Fitter (2) Electrician (3)Instrument Mechanic (4) Mill Wright/Maintenance Mechanic (5) Mechanic (Radio & TV) (6) Electronic Mechanic (7) Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) (8) Wireman (9) Tractor Mechanic (10) Armature & Coil Winder (11) Mechanic (Diesel) (12) Heat (15) Refrigeration & AC Mechanic OR Diploma in Electrical/ Mechanical/ Electronics/ Automobile Engineering. (Graduation or Master Degree in Engineering will not be an alternative qualification)."
9. The prescribed eligibility qualification for appointment to a post for recruitment is a matter to be considered by the appropriate authority. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors ((2019) 2 SCC 404 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.
10. Indisputably the petitioner of this OA was not having 6 O.A./051/00088/2021 either of the prescribed qualification of criteria of eligibility. Power of judicial review cannot be invoked to decide equivalence of prescribed qualifications with any other qualification. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has observed that equivalence of prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification cannot be decided by the courts invoking its power of judicial review. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. The question regarding equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications. Thus in Judicial review the ambit of the prescribed qualifications can neither be expand nor the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification can be decided.
11. However, in case in hand one another aspect, namely whether any candidate who was not having either of the prescribed qualifications but was having Diploma in Production Engineering was given appointment by the Respondent Department for the post of ALP and applicant only has been discriminated, has also been raised. Discrimination ought not to be there. Learned counsel for applicant was asked to give details of candidate/candidates who was/were not having prescribed qualifications but for possessing Diploma in Production Engineering has/ have been given appointment and though he claimed inability to give such detail instantly but stressed that it is true that candidates who were not having prescribed qualifications and possessing Diploma in Production Engineering have been given 7 O.A./051/00088/2021 appointment for post of ALP. Learned counsel for respondents is vehemently denying that no such person has been appointment.
12. Taking note of entirety, it deem fit and proper to dispose of this OA, with direction to the respondents that if any candidate not having either of the prescribed qualification given in the Advertisement (Advertisement Notice No. RRB/MFP/1/2006-07 published on 06/01/2007) but pursuant to said Advertisement has been given appointment for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot for possessing Diploma in Production Engineering then case of the applicant be re- considered and appropriate decision be taken. However if no such appointment has been given to any candidate, not having either of the prescribed qualification, applicant may be informed at the earliest possible. Ordered accordingly.
13. With aforesaid observation and direction OA stands disposed. Pending M.A., if is any also stands disposed of accordingly.
(Sunil Kr. Sinha) (M.C. Verma) Member (A) Member (J) sks/-