Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Randhir Kumar vs Steel Authority Of India on 21 October, 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 3953/2015
Order reserved on : 15.10.2019
Order pronounced on: 21.10.2019
Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
Randhir Kumar
S/o Indra Mohan Prasad Yadav,
F-114, Ladosarai, Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Arun Panwar)
VERSUS
1. Chairman & Managing Director,
Steel Authority of India (SAIL),
Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
2. Chairman,
All India Council for Technical Education,
7th floor, Chanderlok Building,
Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
... Respondent
(None)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J) The applicant is having two years of Diploma in Foundary Technology from Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering of Technology (SLIET). It is submitted that the Board of Technical 2 OA No.3953/2015 Education, Maharashtra State vide letter dated 12.08.1998 had also declared the said diploma of SLIET is equivalent to three year Diploma.
2. The applicant has applied for the post of Operator-cum- Technician Trainee. He has disclosed in the academic qualification column as having three years diploma course which was considered equivalent to SLIET. The applicant cleared the examination and appeared in interview and medical examination but has not been offered the appointment to the said post.
Feeling aggrieved by this, he has approached the Tribunal on the ground that Two year Diploma in Foundary Technology by SIET is equivalent to Three year Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as has been held by the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of Vimal Singh Rana vs. State of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No.3287/2000 decided on 21.08.2011 wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has observed that two years diploma obtained from the SLIET is equivalent to three years diploma course of State Board of Technical Education Haryana. The applicant also relied upon CAT, Chandigarh Bench Sandeep Goyal vs. BSNL & ors. in OA No.53/2014, wherein following was held:
"It is well known that three year diploma courses are applicable in cases where the entry qualification is Matriculate and where the same is 10+2 the duration of diploma course is two years."3 OA No.3953/2015
3. Another candidate, who has done diploma in Tool & Dye making MSME, was considered against Mechanical Engineering vacancy and was selected and he is presently working with SAIL. A similar candidate, who has two years diploma in Instrumentation and Process Control by the same Institute SLIET was considered equivalent to three years full time diploma in Instrumentation and he has joined TISCO Steel Plant Burnpur. Another person who has two years diploma in Chemical Technology by SLIET was considered equivalent to three years full time diploma in Chemical discipline, has joined respondent no.2, SAIL, Rourkela Plant Orissa. The Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal allowed the application of similar candidate from SLIET and directed to consider the appointment Telecom Technical Assistant in BSNL in Haryana Circle.
4. On the contrary, respondents filed reply and submitted therein that the applicant has earlier filed another OA No.1231/2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2015 by Principal Bench of this Tribunal after exhaustively considering the case observed in para 4 of its order dated 05.03.2015:
"As can be seen from the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order as also from letter dated 18.12.2013 of All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, it is for the employer to take a decision regarding equivalence of the Diploma possessed by the Applicant with that mentioned in the Employment Notice."4 OA No.3953/2015
The relevant portion of said letter dated 18.12.2013 states as under:
"The requests received from private companies or individual for granting equivalence to diploma courses for employment purpose is left to the employer whereas, the academic purpose it may be left to the institutions where the admissions for higher studies are taken."
Raising the same issue again in instant OA, is barred by re- judicata.
5. The whole case of the applicant is that he is equating the equivalence certificate issued by Institution SLIET, from where he has passed his two year diploma course in Foundry Engineering with that of three year diploma course in Mechanical Engineering which was mentioned in Employment advertisement. Admittedly, this cannot be so because letter dated 18.12.2013 of All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, implies that Institution SLIET certificate may be taken into account only for the admission for higher studies and not for employment purpose as the same is left to the employer for his consideration.
6. The employer, in consonance with the direction given by this Tribunal, have considered the equivalence certificate produced by applicant with the requirements mentioned in the employment advertisement and thereafter passed a reasoned order rejecting the equivalence certificate of applicant. Hence the present OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
5 OA No.3953/2015
7. It is further submitted that the applicant has suppressed material facts from the respondent to the effect that he is not possessing three years diploma in Mechanical Engineering, as required for the post of Operator-cum-Technician Trainee, under reference and also filed wrong information in the online application against the column „Educational Qualification‟ where the applicant has declared that he is having education qualification as „Matriculation, three years full time Diploma in Engineering‟ whereas he is having only a two years Diploma in Foundry Technology which cannot be taken to be equivalent to three years full time Diploma in Mechanical Engineering.
This contention has found merit with the Bench wherein it observed as under in para 3 of its order dated 05.03.2015 disposing of the earlier OA No.1231/2014 filed by the applicant, Sh. Randhir Kumar:
"There is sufficient merit in the contention put forth on behalf of the respondents that the applicant ought to have declared the qualification possessed by him correctly in his application form and when he did not possess qualification mentioned in the Employment Notification, his candidature could be summarily rejected."
On this ground alone, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is also submitted that the present OA is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party and misjoinder of party in as much as the applicant has been allegedly aggrieved of the order dated 6 OA No.3953/2015 21.05.2015 which has been passed for SAIL and SAIL is not a party whereas no cause of action has accrued to the applicant against the CMD, SAIL, however, CMD, SAIL has been impleaded as respondent no.1 and on this ground alone, the present OA deserves to be dismissed.
9. It is also pertinent to mention at this juncture that as per the letter dated 18.12.2013, All India Council for Technical Education has categorically stated that the requests received for granting equivalence to degree courses for employment purpose will be left to the discretion of employer. The employer accordingly exercising its discretion has held the equivalent certificate to be invalid/not acceptable as it is granted by the institute without any backing of a Gazette Notification and has disposed off the same in compliance of the established procedure and directions of this Tribunal by passing a speaking order.
10. It is reiterated that in the certificate dated 18.07.2013, the Institute has not certified that the Diploma in Foundry Technology is equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering but issued with the words "Specialisation in Foundry Technology" emphasising the importance of foundry Technology. Such a certificate is not equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering simplicitor. Further, said certificate has not quoted any Government order/Gazette notification wherein this course has been declared as 7 OA No.3953/2015 equivalent. On the contrary, the certificate dated 10.07.2013 issued by SLIET shows that Institute is merely making a request as under:
"It is therefore requested that Diploma awarded by SLIET be treated as equivalent to Three Year Diploma awarded by various State Boards of Technical Education for the purpose of recruitment and admission to higher module. Moreover, in the aforesaid advertisement (Annexure R-1), the respondent herein has not given any option that candidates having equivalent educational qualification will also be considered."
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on records. The applicant was offered appointment to the post of Operator-cum-Technician Trainee and it was withdrawn on the ground that he is having two years diploma from SLIET whereas requirement as per advertisement for the post was three years diploma. The applicant was asked to produce the equivalence certificate from competent authority. The applicant produced the AICTE letter dated 18.12.2013 which says as under:
"I am refer to your application dated 18.12.2013 and to inform you as below:
In this regard, it is stated that as per AICTE‟s present policy, the requests received for granting equivalence to degree courses for academic purpose will be referred to AIU/UGC. The requests received for granting equivalence to degree courses for employment purpose will be left to the discretion of employer.
The requests received from private companies or individuals for granting equivalence to diploma courses for employment purpose is left to the employer whereas, for academic purpose it may be left to the institutions where the admissions for higher studies are taken.
The requests received from Government, Semi-Government organizations for granting equivalence to diploma courses for academic purpose may be left to the institutions where the admissions for higher studies are taken.8 OA No.3953/2015
In view of above you are requested to approach Appropriate Authority."
12. The AICTE has stated that it is the discretion of the employer to treat the diploma course equivalent to employment purpose. The contention of the applicant is that similarly situated persons were already selected by the employer. However, this has not been substantiated as they were all from different streams and it is the discretion of employer to treat the diploma course equivalent if it is useful for their employment. They cannot be compelled to take particular certificate like Foundary course from SLIET by any court of law when competent Authority is left to their discretion. The judgment cited by the applicant was for different diploma courses and is in respect of BSNL and SAIL, Burnpur. For the same, it is the discretion of the respondent but it cannot be agitated as a legal right. The applicant has not cited any case of a person who is having two years diploma in Foundary and who has been taken by the respondents and had thus discriminated him. The other equivalence certificate issued by the authorities is not binding on SAIL. They specifically asked for Government notification in this regard which was never produced. The judgment of Vimal Singh Rana (supra) is not applicable in the present case wherein the issue was of admission for higher studies.
9 OA No.3953/2015
13. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the present case and the same is rejected. No order as to costs.
( Ashish Kalia ) (Pradeep Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) „sd‟