Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Purna Chandra Kahili vs Nhai on 6 February, 2025
// 1 // OA/051/00446/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI
O.A./051/00446
446/2024
Reserved on : 18.12.2024
Pronounced on :
CORAM
HON'LE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH
RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE SHRI RAJVEER SINGH VERMA
VERMA, MEMBER (J)
Purna Chandra Kahili, aged about 55 years (M), son of Late
RasarajKahili, resident of at/P.O. Mohulishole, District
District- East
Singhbhum (Jharkhand), currently posted as D.G.M. (Tech) in NHAI
NHAI.
...............Applicant
(By Advocate: ShriAbhay Kumar Behera, Sr. Advocate
ShriSanchaySrivastava)
Versus
1. Union of India&
India Others through the Secretary, Ministry of Road,
Transport and Highways, 1, Parliament Street, Transport Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The National Highway Authority of India, through its Chairman, at
G-55 & 5 Sector 10 Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075.
3. The General Manager (HR/Admin)
(HR/Admin)-II
II A, National Highway
Authority of India, G-5
G 5 & 5 Sector 10 Dwarka, New Delhi -
110075.
4. Project Director-
Director Nationalal Highway Authority of India (NHA),
PIU
PIU-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 834001.
...............Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate
ShriMaurya Vijay Chandra.
Chandra.)
ORDER
PER:RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER[JUDICIAL]
1. Applicant has filed present OA under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:
reliefs:-
"(i) Call for the records of the case.
(ii) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27/06/2024 at Annexure A A-1.
(iii) Direct the Respondents to give all consequential benefits to the applicant.
// 2 // OA/051/00446/2024
(iv) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Direct the Respondents to pay the cost of litigation to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant pplicant was appointed as Draftsman in NHAI on 25.06.1997, post redesignated as Technical Assistant. In year 2003 applicant after taking permission from NHAI for doing a course in Diploma D in Civil Engineering and completed diploma course.. In year 2008 applicant joined B.Tech Course in Civil Engineering at Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University and at the time of admission degree course was recognized course and completed in year 2011.
3. NHAI on August 2011 issued public notice on ddeputation eputation basis for appointment as Manager (Technical) (Technical). Vide office order dated 27.02.2015 applicant was promoted as Manager (Technical), Level Level-11 11 w.e.f. 18.05.2012 and posted in year 2016 at Jharkhand Project Implementation Unit at Jamshedpur as Manager ((Technical) Level-12 12 post as per Recruitment Rules, 1996 w.e.f. 18.05.2016.
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rabi SankarPatro&Ors (Civil Appeal No. 17869/2017) held B.Tech qualification from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University not valid degree as the same was not as per norms of AICTE. Direction was issued to provide 2 chances to qualify in a test conducted by AICTE for those who had taken admission up to 2005 academic session. Applicant had taken admission in academi academicc session // 3 // OA/051/00446/2024 2008 and was not given any chance to qualify in any test. NHAI had constituted committee to take steps to implement Hon'ble Apex Court judgment and issued letter to submit copy of degree. Case of applicant is that for promotion from Technical Ass Assistant istant to higher grades, degree is not prescribed qualification. There was difference of opinion among members of the committee whether B.Tech degree required for promotion form Technical Assistant to higher posts in NHAI.
Majority view of the members for committee is that applicant is affected by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Respondents reverted applicant on 01.03.2021 to post of Technical Assistant vide order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure (Annexure-A-17)
17) and promotion as Assistant Manager [Tech./Manager (Tech.) (Tech.)]] on basis of degree recalled. Applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 238/2021 at Circuit Bench Ranchi of this Tribunal and Division Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the OA on 18.02.2022.
6. Order dated 18.02.2022 passed in OA No. 238/2021 (Circuit Bench Bench Ranchi, Patna Bench) was set set-aside aside by Hon'ble High Court Jharkhand Ranchi on 08.09.2022 directing respondents to take fresh decision. Respondents issued notices on 17.07.2023 and considering reply dated 04.08.2023 impugned order 27.06.2024 has been passed, passed, again reverting to the post of Technical Assistant without considering column-8 column 8 of Recruitment Rules for Manager (Technical).
Applicant still continuing on the post of DGM (Technical).
7. It is case of applicant that rrespondents espondents have not considered column column 8 of Recruitment Rules and mechanically passed // 4 // OA/051/00446/2024 order so also not taken into consideration reply of applicant as applicant has not taken any advantage of any degree for promotion to post of Manager (Technical) and DGM (Technical) and as per Recruitment Rules Rules there is no requirement of degree. Hence, this OA.
8. Respondents have contested the case by filing written statement wherein it has been submitted that the applicant has suppressed the fact that the validity of his B. Tech degree had been questioned right since the beginning and in fact, he filed OA No.1275/2014 before the CAT, Principal Bench challenging the jurisdiction of the Selection Committee to look into the genuineness of the degree and had relied upon the order dated 07.12.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.35793 No.35793-35796/2012 35796/2012 to not to take any adverse action against the degree holders.
9. In reply to para 4.10 of tthe he OA, respondents have submitted that NHAI permits its employees to pursue courses from recognized university and it was onus of the person to check whether the course of study is recognized or not. NHAI granted permission to pursue B. Tech Degree based on on information furnished by the official.
10. In reply to paragraph 4.12 of the OA it is submitted that NHAI had issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Manager (Tech) on deputation basis in the Employment News dated 19-25, 25, November 2011. It is further submitted that a cadre of technical staff was not constituted at the relevant time and the feeder posts under the mode of promotion at the level of Manager Manager-Tech.
Tech.
were not earmarked, as such, there is no question of appointment of // 5 // OA/051/00446/2024 the applicant being being on promotion basis. Any reference to promotion in the Recruitment Rules would be non non-est in the event of non--
constitution of a cadre and clear identification of feeder posts. He was appointed to the post of Manager-Tech.
Manager Tech. on the basis of the selection pursuant suant to the advertisement and on the basis of his eligibility qualifications claimed and believed to be true. It is noteworthy that the essential educational qualification for the post of Manager (Tech) on deputation basis was clearly and categorically st stated ated in the advertisement as: "Degree in Civil Engineering from a reputed Institute of Technology or a recognized university." It is further stated that no separate eligibility qualification for 'Promotion' were prescribed. Condition 5 of the advertisement advertisement, however, stated:
"Regular employees of NHAI who fulfilled the eligibility conditionsprescribed for promotion to any of the above mentioned post as on the last date may also apply. In case they are selected their appointment will be on promotion basis as per guidelines on the subject".
11. Further, the applicant had filed an O.A. No. 299/2012 in Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal in the year 2012.
The applicant had himself submitted the copy of his application form before the Hon'ble Court testifying testifying that he possesses the essential educational qualification B.Tech. in Civil Engineering.
12. The contents of paragraph 4.16 of the OA is controverted by the respondents and it it is submitted that two chances to qualify in the test conducted by AICTE were given given by the AICTE in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment quoted by the applicant. One // 6 // OA/051/00446/2024 NHAI official, Shri SK Bansal who is a counterpart of the applicant, had availed such an opportunity and qualified the test to validate his degree. The contention of the applicant that he was not been afforded any opportunity to qualify in any test does not lie under the purview of NHAI rather he could have resorted to legal remedies available for not being given the due opportunities, if applicable, as per the directions ections of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
13. In reply topara para 4.19 of the OA OA, it is submitted that ass per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, NHAI is bound to denude the petitioner of any benefit that was conferred to him as a result of his having having claimed to have possessed a degree of B. Tech from the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University. It is further relevant to state that the Petitioner had vehemently relied upon the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to secure his promotion to the Post of Manager (Tech), stating that the validity of his degree could not be gone into as there was an interim order of the Supreme Court for no adverse steps to be taken against the holders of the degrees of Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University. It is also reiterated that the essential educational qualification for the post of Manager (Tech) on deputation basis for eligibility was clearly and categorically stated in the advertisement as: "Degree in Civil Engineering from a reputed Institute of Technology or a recognized univer university."
14. In reply to para 4.26 of the OA it is submitted that as per the records, the said Committee was constituted on 29.11.2018. The terms of reference of the Committee was to implement the decision of // 7 // OA/051/00446/2024 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation ccase.
ase. Circular dated 26.04.2019 was issued by the HR/Admn Division for providing the copies of the degrees to the Committee. The Committee held its meeting(s) on 15.10.2019 and gave its report on the same day. The report of the Committee was duly signed by all the three members.
Subsequently, the Committee was tasked to review its recommendations in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court subsequent clarification/judgment dated 22.01.2018 which was not taken into cognizance while finalising the earlier recomm recommendations.
endations.
The earlier Committee constituted on 29.11.2018, however, had to be re-constituted constituted to replace one member vide order dated 22.05.2020 as one of its member's had repatriated after completion of deputation tenure. Accordingly, the Committee was re re-constituted constituted and the matter was again referred to the Committee. The Committee held its meeting(s) on 13.07.2020 and the two Members of the Committee signed the report and then it was sent for signatures of the third member on 21.08.2020 The report was not signed by the third member even after regular follow-up follow up and in view of the inordinate delay, the Competent Authority (Member (Member- Admn.) on 18.09.2020 decided to go ahead with the report duly signed by majority of members of the Committee.
15. As per the records, the third Member submitted his note in the matter on 16.12.2020 i.e. almost four months after the majority members had submitted the report. Contrary to the submission of the applicant, the said note dated 16.12.2020 was duly considered by the // 8 // OA/051/00446/2024 Member (Admn.) and it was decided to proceed further in the matter as per the report submitted by majority of members.
16. Applicant filed rejoinder to the written statement and controvert the submission of the respondents. In reply to para 2 of the written itten statement, applicant stated that OA No.1275/2024 was entirely different because of the OM dated 22.11.2023 whereby applicant was required to appear in a written test for promotion. Since this procedure was prescribed only for applicant to the exclusi exclusion on of others, the applicant had challenged the same in the said OA.
17. In para (l) of the reply,itt is stated by the applicant that the advertisement dated 19-25 19 25 November, 2011 (advertisement was uploaded in the website of NHAI much prior to the said date) wa wass issued by the respondents on deputation basis. However, the said advertisement contained a condition no. 5 which stated that regular employee of NHAI who fulfill fulfi l the conditions for 'promotion' will also be promoted therefore, as far as regular employees of NHAI is concerned, the RR for the post of Manager (Technical) which is relevant and not the conditions stipulated in advertisement dated 19 19--
25 November, 2011. It is wrong and denied that eligibility conditions for deputation are applicable for selected candidates also. In any case, these factual parameters have already been considered by this Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Ranchi and no more open for fresh arguments. The issue here is not about the initial promotion to the post of Manager (Technical) and DGM (Technical). It is not open to the respondents now to even contend that the initial appointment // 9 // OA/051/00446/2024 was uncalled for. Furthermore, the filing of OA No. 299/2012 by the applicant has no connection with the cause of action in present case.
Inn OA No. 299/2012 that in spite of his application dated 16/11/2011 against advertisement dated 19-25 19 25 November, 2011 he was not being considered as regular employee for being promoted as Manager (Technical). The issue regarding degree etc was not the subje subject ct matter of the said OA. In any case, this factual matrix has already been considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Ranchi in previous round of litigation and the same are no more open for fresh arguments. Furthermore, it is reiter reiterated that the issue regarding the initial promotion of the applicant as Manager (Technical) and DGM (Technical) is not under question in this OA. It is only action of respondents subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Ranchi dated 08/09/2022 in W.P (C) No. 1269/2022 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the SLP No. 9775/2023 dated 08/05/2023 is the issue. For the said purpose neither OA No. 1275/2014 and OA No. 299/2012 has any relevance.
18. In reply to para 6(o) of written statement the applicant reiterated para 4.15 of OA and itt is specifically submitted by him that for the post of DGM (Technical) in respect of promotees 4 years years--
service as Manager (Technical) is the only requi requirement.
19. In reply to para 6 (p)) of written statement statement, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given opportunity to only candidates up to 2005 academic session. All candidates from 2006 // 10 // OA/051/00446/2024 onwards had not been given any opportunity by the Hon'ble Sup Supreme reme Court. Since the applicant had taken admission in the year 2008 he was not given any opportunity to qualify in the exam conducted post the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
20. In reply to para 6 (s) it is further submitted by the applicant that the interim relief referred to by the respondents in SLP No. 35793-35796/2012 35793 35796/2012 which is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A copy of the office report from the official website of Hon'ble Supreme Court is annexed as Annexure R R-1.
1. But in any case, after after the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Ranchi and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is SLP No. 9775/2023, the only question for adjudication that survives is column 8 of the RR for Manager (Technical) has to be interpreted by respondents with reference to its crucial words or not. Nothing else is material at this reference stage. It is very specifically denied that degree in Civil Engineering was required for regular employee of NHAI to the post of Manager (Technical) and further to DGM (Technical).
21. In reply to para 6 (z), it is submitted that it is wrong to suggest that the dissenting note submitted by one of the members was considered by the competent authority. The respondents may be put to strict proof. In fact, it is an admitted fact that this issue was con considered sidered by the Hon'ble High Court and as a fact finding has been recorded that the said date was not considered by the competent authority. It is no more open to the respondents to take a stand which has been judicially settled in previous round of litigation.
litigat
// 11 // OA/051/00446/2024
22. Itt is submitted that the impugned action is clearly dehors the RR for the post of Manager (Technical) and further to DGM (Technical).
23. Heard the parties.
24. Learned counsel of the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Co Court urt in support of his arguments:
arguments:-
(i) In the case of Nelson Motisvs Union of India and another (1992) 4 SCC 711 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"Iff the words of a statute are clear and free from any vagueness and are, therefore, reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, it must be construed by giving effect to that meaning, irrespective of consequences. The language of the sub sub-rule rule here is precise and unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense. As was observed iinn innumerable cases in India and in England, the expression used in the statute alone declares the intent of the legislature. In the words used by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay AnandMa AnandMaharaj , when the language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute arises, for the act speaks for itself. Reference was also made in the reported judgment to Maxwell stating:
To construction must not, of course, be strained to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the words.
words."
(ii) In the case of Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab & Others (2014) 3 SCC 92 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"42. This Court in Rohitash Kumar &Ors.v. OmPrakash Sharma &Ors.,, AIR 2013 SC 30, after placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court held:
"The Court has to keep in mind the fact that, while interpreting tthe he provisions of a Statute, it can neither add, nor subtract even a single word... A section is to be interpreted by reading all of its parts together, and it is not permissible, to omit any part thereof. The Court cannot proceed with the assumption that the legislature, while enacting the Statute has committed a mistake; it must proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said; even if there is some defect in the phraseology used by it in framing the statute, and it is not open to the co court urt to add and amend, or by construction, make up for the deficiencies, which have been left in the Act......The Statute is not to be construed in // 12 // OA/051/00446/2024 light of certain notions that the legislature might have had in mind, or what the legislature is expected to have said, or what the legislature might have done, or what the duty of the legislature to have said or done was. The Courts have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment, in or order der to avoid any real, or imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause.......under the garb of interpreting the provision, the Court does not have the power to add or subtract even a single word, as it would not amount to interpretation, but legislation." Thus, by no means it can be said that provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service during the course of 'inquiry'. The word 'inquiry' is not surpulsage in the said provisi provision.
43. Since after the filing of the charge charge-sheet, sheet, the court reaches the stage of inquiry and as soon as the court frames the charges, the trial commences, and therefore, the power under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C.
.P.C. can be exercised at any time after the charge charge-sheet sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Section 207/208 C Cr.P.C., r.P.C., committal etc., which is only a pre-trial trial stage, intended to put the process into motion. This stage cannot be said to be a judicial step in the true sense for it only requires an application of mind rather than a judicial application of mind.
44. At this pre-trial trial stage, the Magistrate is required to perform acts in the nature of administrative work rather than judicial such as ensuring compliance of Sections 207 and 208 Cr.P.C., and committing the matter if it is exclusively triable by Sessions Court. Therefore, it would be legitimate for us to conclude that the Magistrate at the stage of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C. is forbidden, by express provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C., ., to apply his mind to the merits of the case and determine as to whether any accused needs to be added or subtracted to face trial before the Court of Sessions."
(iii) In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs M/s Universal Ferro and Alli Allied ed Chemicals Ltd. & Another (2020) 5 SCC 332 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"46.
46. We are of the considered view, that if such an interpretation is accepted, the words "unless specifically provided in such notification" in subsection section (1) of Section 5A will have to be ignored and the said words would be rendered otiose. It is a settled principle of law that while interpreting a provision due weightage will have to be given to each and every word used in the statute.
47. In this respect, we may gainfu gainfully lly refer to the following observations of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others7:
7 (2014) 3 SCC 92 "42. To say that powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised only during trial would be reducing the impact of the word "inquiry" by the court. It is a settled principle of law that an interpretation which leads to the conclusion that a word uused sed by the legislature is redundant, should be avoided as the presumption is that // 13 // OA/051/00446/2024 the legislature has deliberately and consciously used the words for carrying out the purpose of the Act. The legal maxim a verbislegis non estrecedendum which means, "from thee words of law, there must be no departure" has to be kept in mind.
43. The court cannot proceed with an assumption that the legislature enacting the statute has committed a mistake and where the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the court cannot go behind the language of the statute so as to add or subtract a word playing the role of a political reformer or of a wise counsel to the legislature. The court has to proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said and even iiff there is some defect in the phraseology, etc., it is for others than the court to remedy that defect. The statute requires to be interpreted without doing any violence to the language used therein. The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation ion for the reason that it has no power to legislate.
44. No word in a statute has to be construed as surplusage.
No word can be rendered ineffective or purposeless. Courts are required to carry out the legislative intent fully and completely. While construing a provision, full effect is to be given to the language used therein, giving reference to the context and other provisions of the statute. By construction, a provision should not be reduced to a "dead letter" or "useless lumber". An interpretati interpretation on which renders a provision otiose should be avoided otherwise it would mean that in enacting such a provision, the legislature was involved in "an exercise in futility" and the product came as a "purposeless piece" of legislation and that the provision hadad been enacted without any purpose and the entire exercise to enact such a provision was "most unwarranted besides being uncharitable."
25. Addl. Solicitor General of India (Shri S.D. Sanjay) argued on behalf of the respondent and vehemently opposes the contentions ntions of the applicant on the following grounds:
grounds:-
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 03.11.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.17869 No.17869-17870 17870 of 2017 titled as Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. vs. Rabi SankarPatro& Others held that the degrees in Engineering gineering obtained by the students who were admitted after the academic years, session 2001 2001-2005, 2005, by the distance education from JRN, Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth University and similar deemed to be universities stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All ben benefits efits secured by the candidates, as a result of such degree in Engineering in the nature of promotion or advance merit // 14 // OA/051/00446/2024 in cadre shall also stand recalled.
(ii) Some applicants including the applicants in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking clarification on the said judgment dated 03.11.2017 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 22.01.2018 clarified the issue regarding 'validation' of degrees as under:
"We, therefore, as a one one-time relaxation in favour of those candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 2005 and who, in terms of the Judgement, are eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE, direct:
a) All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming test to be cond conducted ucted by AICTE In May June, 2018 and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the Judgement, can retain the degrees in question and all the advantage flowing therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018, 07.2018, whichever is earlier.
b) This facility is given as one one-time time exception so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first ottempt itself should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the advantages. But If they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the Judgement shall apply, in that the degrees and all advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that no o more such chonces or exception will be given or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the Judgement but this exception shall not apply for such // 15 // OA/051/00446/2024 second attempt.
(iii) Name of the applicant is mentioned at Sl. No.2 of the table prepared by the committee in minutes of meeting held on 13.07.2020. Applicant obtained degree of B.Tech (Civil) from JRN Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth Deemed to University and he had not provided any information regarding passing/appearance to the tes tests ts conducted by AICTE-UGC.
(iv) The Committee in para 6 of its observed as under ::-
Considering all the above aspects and keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgments dated 03.11.2017 and dated 22.01.2018, the Committee recommendss as under:
The degrees acquired by Shri P.C. Kahill, DGM (Tech.) (SL.No.2) and 5/ShriNirmal Kumar (Sl.No.4), Ram BabuJha (Sl.No.5), Sanjeev Kr. Verma (Sl.No.9), Managers (Tech.) is from one of the four Deemed to be Universities in question and also in vie view w of the fact that they have not passed the test/tests jointly conducted by AICTE-UGC, UGC, hence, the degrees stands "Invalid" and 'cancelled' in terms of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
1) In their case, the advantages on account of promotion or advancement given in career on the basis of such acquisition of degrees shall also stand withdrawn.
Accordingly, the Cadre Controlling Division may take appropriate action for reversion of promoti promotions ons and benefits accrued on the basis of such degrees acquired by them. However, In terms of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.
(v) Applicant submitted his representation on 23.12.2020
// 16 // OA/051/00446/2024
(Annexure - 13) wherein he stated that he applied for the post of Manager (Tech) as a regular employee of NHAI since 1997 and therefore degree certificate was not mandatory for him and judgment of the Ho Hon'ble n'ble Supreme Court is not applicable for his case.
(vi) Vide OM dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure - 17) applicant was reverted to the post of Technical Assistant from the post of DGM (Tech).
26. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed an OA No.238/2021 before the CAT,, Patna Bench, Patna and the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.01.2022 (Pronounced on 18.02.2022) dismissed the OA observation made by the Tribunal in Para 29 & Para 30 are as under:
under:-
"29.
29. Before parting we want to say about one another aspect as well, which h though is not going to root cause of this controversy adverted to but is significant to take note of by the respondent Authority. It transpires from present set of Rules and other surrounding circumstances that person appointed as Technical Assistant in NHAI would have no promotional avenue in the Dept. in their whole career.Applicant has rendered service almost 24 years and he did B. Tech course after due permission from respondents. No fault can be attributed to him. He did not mislead the respondents to o get the promotion. The post of Technical Assistant is in the pay scale of 2000 2000-3500 3500 at the time it was created in year 1996 and it is equivalent to level 6 at present. A person appointed in the year 1996 would continue to be the same without any career advancement dvancement upto the age of retirement. Such service Recruitment Rules would be adverse to administration of justice and may not be in consonance with letter and spirit of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CSIR V3 KGS Bhatt &Ors.: (1984) 4 SC SCC C 635 and // 17 // OA/051/00446/2024 1995 Supp SCC 688: Dr. O Z HussainVs UOI. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that promotion is a normal incidence of service and a person recruited to an organization is recruited for a whole career and therefore that person must be given enough oppo opportunity rtunity for career advancement. Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that there must be at least 2 promotional avenues and if no such promotional avenue is available then the same must be created and benefits must be given to the employee. It is hoped that Respondent ondent Authority will provide promotional avenue to said class.
30. In view of factual and legal scenario, discussed above, the OA accordingly is dismissed. Pending MA, if there is any, also stand disposed of.
of."
27. Applicant filed W.P. No.1269 of 2022 befo before re the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi against the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the CAT in OA No.238/2021 and the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgment dated 09/08.09.2022 set aside the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Tribunal consequentl consequentlyy the order of reversion dated 01.03.2021 and order dated 18.02.2021 passed against the applicant by NHAI was also set-aside.
set aside. Observation/analysis made by the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment is reproduced below:
below:-
"27.
27. The narration of facts recorded in the opening paragraphs of this judgment show that this applicant who was working as Technical Assistant on redesignation in N.H.A.I. since 1997 also applied under the advertisement issued in 2011 for filling up of the post of Manager (Technical). Petitioner had, in the meantime, obtained B.Tech degree from J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth. The advertisement was for filling up of the post of Manager (Technical) through deputation but in service candidates were also asked to apply. Petitioner applied thereto. Petitioner got promoted after two rounds of litigation before learned C.A.T. The promotions were given effect to by virtue of the office order dated 27th February, 2015 issued by the Deputy General Manager (H.R. (H.R.-II). The office order dated 27th February, 2015 reads as under.
// 18 // OA/051/00446/2024 "In deference of CAT (PB) order dt. 30.10.2014 in OA No. 1275/2014 with reference to earlier CAT (PB) common order dt. 11.12.2012 in OA No. 299/2012 and on the recommendation of the Review Selection Committee ommittee vide minutes dt. 02.02.2015, the Competent Authority has accorded approval to promote Sh. Purna Chandra Kahili, Technical Assistant presently posted at NHAI NHAI-HQ HQ to the post of Manager (Tech.) in the scale of pay of Rs. 15600 15600--
39100/- (PB-3) + Grade Pay of Rs.6600/ Rs.6600/- on regular basis w.e.f.
the date of assumption of charge to the promoted post in the grade of Manager (Tech.).
2. Sh. Purna Chandra Kahili shall be on probation for one year from the date of joining to the promoted post and his confirmati confirmation on in the grade of Manager (Tech.) shall be subject to condition of satisfactory completion of probation period.
3. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. The advertisement issued in August, 2011, in its openin opening g paragraph, invited application, from officers under Central/State Government Departments/Autonomous bodies/Public Sector Undertakings for appointment on deputation basis to the post of Manager Technical in Group A. It further clarified that in the case off any discrepancy in eligibility/experience criteria, the recruitment rules as per N.H.A.I. regulation shall prevail. As per Para 5 of the advertisement, regular employees of N.H.A.I., who fulfill the eligibility condition prescribed for promotion to any ooff the above mentioned posts or on the last date for receipt of application, could also apply. It was further indicated that in case they are selected their appointment will be on promotion basis as per the guidelines on the subject. The office order dated 27th February, 2015 makes it clear that petitioner was promoted to the post of Manager (Technical) on regular basis with effect from the date of assumption of charge and not directly appointed or treated as a deputationist. The petitioner therefore came to occupy the post of Manager (Technical) on promotion and not on deputation. We will now advert to the relevant rules which apply for the post of Manager Technical under the 1996 Regulations. They are extracted hereunder:
"Name of the Post No. of Posts Classification of post Scale of Pay // 19 // OA/051/00446/2024 1 2 3 4..........
Manager (Technical) 9 (Nine) Group A/B 3000-4500
Method of Recruitment Age limit (in respect of direct recruits only)
5 6
Transfer on deputation/ 40 years
Promotion/direct recruitment
Educational and other qualification required
7.......................................... Educational Qualification Essential
(i) Degree in Civil Engineering from a reputed Institution of Technology or a recognized University.
Desirable Post Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering in the field's relating to Highway Engineering and/or Post Graduate Degree in Management/MBA from an Institute of repute.
Experience Should, have put in at least 3 years service in a responsible Senior positionn in a Govt. Deptt./Public Sector Undertaking/ Commercial Organisation of repute and should be working In a analogous post or the post next below or equivalent for at least 3 years.
Desirable Should be well versed in the field of Highway/ Bridge Engineering dealing with Planning, Pre Pre-qualification of Consultants and Contractors; Financial Appraisal of Projects; Detailed Designing, Techno Techno-financial reviews;
Evaluation of Tenders Contract Management; Monitoring Liaison with major construction ag agencies/Govt. Bodies;
Performance Appraisal of Major Highways/Bridge Projects." ......................................................... In case of promotion or Deputation/ Transfer Gradefrom which promotion/ Deputation/ Transfer to be made ........................................... ...........................................8..................................
By deputation/transfer from candidates // 20 // OA/051/00446/2024 already on the panel of Under Secy. in the Govt. of India and possessing the Educational qualifications stipulated in Col. 7 or from candidates holding analogous post in a Central/State Govt. Deptt./ Autonomous Body/ Public Sector Undertaking or with 3 years regular service in the scale of Rs.2200 Rs.2200-4000 or 6 years in the scale of Rs. 2000--3500.
Period of Deputation Not more than 3 years but may be extended with the approval of Central Govt.
It is the case of the respondents that in case of promotion also the educational qualification as stipulated under column 7, i.e. a degree in Civil Engineering from a reputed institution of technology or a recognized University, is a mandatory requirement.
29. It is the case of the petitioner, as pleaded before the learned C.A.T. also that column 8 contains different criteria for deputation/transfer and promotion. For filling up of the post of Manager (Technical) through 19 deputation/transfer a candidate on the panel of Under Secretary, the Govt. of India is required to possess the educational qualification stipulated in Column 7. For promotion to Manager (Technical), candidates holding analogous post in a Central/State Government Department/Autonomous Body/Public Sector Undertaking can also apply. The petitioner contends that the third class is in respect of in service candidates, who are required to have three years of regular service in the scale of Rs.2,200-4,000/- or six years in the scale of Rs. 2,000 2,000-3,500/- or the corresponding revised scale under the subsequent pay revision. The expression 'or' used under column 8, therefore, cannot be read conjunctively in case of persons who are inservice candidates. The requirement of educational qualification stipulated in col column umn 7 is for persons on deputation or transfer holding the post of Under Secretary in the panel of government of India. By according an interpretation that the categories indicated in column 8 either from candidates coming from deputation and transfer or ffrom rom analogous posts in Central/State Government Departments/autonomous Bodies/Public Sector Undertakings or incumbents with three years // 21 // OA/051/00446/2024 regular service in a particular scale of pay Rs.2200 Rs.2200-4000/- or for six years in scale of pay Rs.2000 Rs.2000-3500/-; all were required quired to fulfill the essential educational qualification of degree in Civil Engineering is one line of construction of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the recruitment rules. The respondents have proceeded to take a decision to revert the petitio petitioner ner on this line of interpretation, but without giving him any opportunity to show cause or to defend his position. From perusal of the judgment of the learned C.A.T., Principal Bench, Delhi, it appears that the applicants therein, two of whom were in the same category as the present petitioner and other being the deputationist had not specifically pleaded this ground nor was any finding rendered on the crucial expressions 'or' used in column 8 of the recruitment rules. The learned Delhi High Court in the ccase ase of Ram Babu, a Deputationist, was not called upon to interpret the relevant column 8 of the rules in question. The said applicant Ram Babu, being the deputationist, had neither controverted the stand of the respondent N.H.A.I. brought on record through their counter affidavit. The present issue, therefore, has not been specifically examined in that light either by the Learned C.A.T., Principal Bench, Delhi or by the Delhi High Court. The learned C.A.T. in the case of the present petitioner has, at paragraph raph 18, also observed that there is some vagueness in the text of column No.8, which provides for qualifications stipulated in column 7 for deputation/transfer from candidates already on the panel of Under/Deputy 20 Secretary, but is silent about candidates es holding analogous posts in a Central/State Government Department/Autonomous Bodies/Public Sector Undertakings. However, it has gone on to hold that all these posts are senior rank posts in Technical side and manned by persons, who need to have the neces necessary sary technical qualification.
Petitioner before us was holding the post of diploma prior to acquisition of the B.Tech degree from the J.R.N. RajansthanVidyapeeth. It has also been brought to the court's notice that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highwa Highways ys vide notification dated 14th March, 2022 had framed the National Highway Authority of India (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Amendment Regulations, 2022, which provides for eligibility criteria for promotion to different posts including Manager (Technical) echnical) which is at Serial No.8. It categorically // 22 // OA/051/00446/2024 shows that in case of recruitment by promotion the feeder cadre post will be Deputy Manager (Technical) with four years regular service in that post, i.e. level 10 of pay matrix (Rs.56,100 (Rs.56,100--
1,77,500/-). Educational ucational and other qualifications required for direct recruits are specifically prescribed at column 7 which is a degree in Civil Engineering from a recognized University/Institute. The 1996 recruitment rules did not explicitly classify different categori categories es in column 8 i.e. in the matter of recruitment to the post of Manager (Technical) by Deputation/transfer or promotion. The order of reversion has entailed adverse civil consequences that cannot be refuted; petitioner having worked for 10 years upon being promoted with effect from 2012 to the post of Manager (Technical) and thereafter to the post of Deputy General Manager (Technical) in 2016 till he was reverted by the order dated 1st March, 2021 to the newly created post of Technical Assistant.
33. The Apex pex Court had opined that the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rules dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice have been observed. It was also held that non observance of natural justice is itself prejudice ice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced. However, the Apex Court went on to further rther observe that where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary tto o observe natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs. However, taking a cue therefrom in the facts of the present case it cannot be stated without risk that the position as propounded by the respondents is admitted or an indisputable posi position tion in law.
There can be two interpretations of the recruitment rules and it cannot be said that only one conclusion or one interpretation is possible. As such, granting an opportunity to show cause to the petitioner to defend his position would be in con consonance sonance with the principles of natural justice when the action of the respondents were going to adversely affect the petitioner. Not doing so may lead to miscarriage of justice. Granting an opportunity to the petitioner before reverting him would have acco accorded rded the competent // 23 // OA/051/00446/2024 authority to take into consideration the other plausible interpretation of the relevant recruitment rules. The competent authority would have had the benefit of both the interpretations while taking an informed decision on the question ooff reversion of the petitioner. In case it was found after hearing the petitioner that his promotion was not dependent upon the educational qualification of B. Tech, there would have been no occasion to withdraw such benefit, if any, relying upon the direct directions ions of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (supra) paragraph 66.7. We, however, consciously refrain from observing any final opinion on the interpretation of column 8 of the recruitment Rules relating to promotion to tthe he post of Manager (Technical) under the N.H.A.I. However, since the order of reversion has entailed serious adverse civil consequences upon the petitioner without any opportunity to show cause or furnish his explanation, we are unable to uphold the judgme judgment nt of the learned C.A.T., whereby the challenge to the order of reversion passed by the N.H.A.I. has been rejected."
28. The NHAI filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 9775/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against order/judgment dated 08.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(s) No.1269/2022 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 08.5.2023.
29. Consequent to dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal No.9775/2023 by the Apex Court, applicant was restored to the former position of DGM (tech) vide office order dated 22.05.2023.
30. A show cause notice dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure - 22) was issued to applicant and the applicant submitted hi hiss reply (Annexure - 23) on 04.08.2023. In para -8 8 of the reply the applicant stated that:
"Para Para 8 of the show cause notice does not demonstrate anywhere as to how the applicant have secured any benefit based on an invalidated degree in Engineering. In this para neither the relevant provisions of RRs of the post of Manager (Technical) or DGM (Technical) has // 24 // OA/051/00446/2024 either been referred to or analysed to arrive at a conclusion that a Degree in Engineering was the basis of my promotion to the post of Manager (Technica (Technical)
l) and DGM (Technical). On the other hand, the High Court of Jharkhand in its judgment dated 08/09/2022 in para 28 not only verbatim quoted the RR for Manager (Technical) but also analysed the aforesaid provisions of RR for the post of Manager (Technical) and analysed the same with specific reference to the crucial expression 'or' used in column 8 of the RR for the post of Manager (Technical). The Hon'ble HC of Jharkhand has also taken note of the fact that even while dismissing the OA, the Central Administrative rative Tribunal held that there is some vagueness in the text of column 8. The sum and substance of judgment and reasoning of the High Court of Jharkhand was that a bare reading of RR for the post of Manager (Technical) clarifies that because of the use of expression 'or' in column 8, 4 different eligibility conditions are prescribed, while one of the eligibility conditions specified Degree in Engineering, the other 3 eligibility conditions did not specify so. The High Court in para 33 concluded as under:
"........However, ........However, taking a cue therefrom in the facts of the present case it cannot be stated without risk that the position as propounded by the respondents is admitted or an indisputable position in law. There can be two interpretations of the recruitment rules and it cannot be said that only one conclusion or one interpretation is possible"
The aforesaid conclusion of the Hon'ble High Court was challenged by the Department in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which specific ground urged and argued on // 25 // OA/051/00446/2024 behalf of the Department as follows:
"Ground B. Because the Hon'ble High Court erred Recruit that there can be two interpretations of the Recruitment Rules and it cannot be said that only one conclusion or one interpretation of the Recruitment Rules is possible. It is submitted that the Recruitment Rules can only be interpreted to mean that the requirement of a degree in Technicaineering for being promoted to the post of herein (Technical) in NHAI is mandatory mandatory. It is settled law that where on the admitted or indispu indisputable table facts only one conclusion is possible, the Court may not issue a writ to compel the observance of natural justice because courts do not issue futile writs. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court ought not to have interfered on the ground that a show cause was not issued."(Underlines supplied for emphasis) The said ground was emphatically argued before the Supreme Court and the Apex Court did not agree with the said ground or argument of the Department and dismissed the SLP. In the present case, the show cause notice otice also except for a bald statement that I secured some benefit on the basis of invalidated degree in Engineering, no where it is stated or examined with reference to the crucial words in the RR more specifically 'or' in column 8 as to how I secured any benefit as a result of invalidated degree in engineering. It may also be noted that one of the members of 3 Member Committee formed for implementation of Supreme Court judgement in Degree case had also clearly opined that Degree was not an essential qualification fication for promotion, however the said opinion was neither sent to the Competent Authority nor examined. In view of the same, the contents/allegations in para 8 is not only vague but is // 26 // OA/051/00446/2024 devoid of any material particulars and therefore is unsustainable in law."
31. Learned ASG specifically argued that column 8 of the RR is indicating only source and essential qualification is mandated in column 7. The applicant is trying to creat createe an artificial category for NHAI official as there is no such pay scale lies in NHAI 2200 to 4000/-- and 2000-3000/-. There is no feeder cadre in NHAI to the post of Manager (Tech).
32. Perusal of application format submitted by the applicant for the post of Manager (Tech) on deputation indicates that the applicant posses 06 year experience of holding analogous posts in public sector on regular service in the pay scale of PB PB-2(₹9300-34800 34800 with GP 4200/-).
4200/ ). Perusal of Table showing in the CPC pay scales and further corresponding 6th CPC's pay band along with 7th CPC's Pay Matrix indicated indi that pay scale of PB--2 (₹9300-34800 34800 with GP 4200) ₹2000-3500/- of the 4th CPC.
is corresponding to pay scale of ₹2000
33. RR of Manager (Technical) A bare reading of the Schedule of the recruitment rules which provides for (i) Name of the post (ii) Number of posts osts (iii) classification of posts (iv) scale of pay (v) method of recruitment (vi) age limit (in respect of direct recruitment only), (vii) educational and other qualifications required and (viii) In case of promotion or Deputation/Transfer Deputation/Transfer--
Grade from which which promotion/Deputation/Transfer to be made, would show that the column 7 provides for essential educational qualification apart from two desirable qualification requirements. It requires the petitioner to have a valid degree in Civil Engineering from a reputed reputed institute of technology or a recognized university. As far as column 8 is concerned, it pertains to the 'Grade' from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made. Petitioner was a regular employee of N.H.A.I., who fulfilled the eligibility condi conditions tions prescribed at the time of recruitment. Column 8 has three parts. Viz By deputation/transfer from // 27 // OA/051/00446/2024 candidates al-ready al ready on the panel of Under Secy. in the Govt. of India and possessing the Eudca-tional Eudca tional qualifications stipulated in Col. 7 or from candidates candidates holding analogous post in a Central/State Govt.
Deptt./Autonomous Body/Public Sector Under Under-taking taking or with 3 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 2200 2200-4000 4000 or 6 years in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500.
2000 Period of Deputation Not more than 3 years but may be extended with the approval of Central Govt.
34. There are other posts:- Assistant Manager Group B, (Pay Scale ₹2000-3500), 3500), Manager (Planning and Information System) Group A & B (Pay Scale ₹2200-4000), 4000), Private Secretary Group B (₹2000 ₹2000-3500) mentioned the same me schedule of the NHAI (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulation, 1996 wherein description of RRs of Manager (Technical) is mentioned. In view of this contention of learned ASG may have no force that applicant is trying to create artificial category category for NHAI official as there is no such pay scale like ₹2200-4000 & ₹2000 ₹2000-3500.
3500. More specifically the applicant was working in the PB-2 2 which is corresponding pay scale of ₹2000-3500/-.
₹2000
35. Column No.7 provide Education qualification essential for the post of Manager (tech) the same is as Educational Qualification Essential: (i) Degree in Civil Engineering from a reputed Institution of Technology or a recognised University.
Desirable: Post Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering in the field's relating lating to Highway Engineer-ing Engineer ing and/ and/or or Post Graduate Degree in Manage gement/MBA ent/MBA from an Institute of repute.
// 28 // OA/051/00446/2024 Experience
Should, have put in at least 3 years service in a responsible senior position in a Govt. Deptt./Public Sector Undertaking/Com Undertaking/Com-merical merical Organisation of repute and should be working in a analogous post or the post next below or equivalent for at least 3 years.
Desirable Should be well versed in the field of Highway/Bridge Engineering dealing with Planning, Pre qualification of Consultants aand Pre-qualification nd Contractors; Financial Appraisal of Projects; Detailed Designing, Techno financial Techno-financial reviews; Evaluation of Tenders Contract Management; Mointoring Liaison with major construction agencies/Govt., Bodies; Performance Appraisal of Major Highways/Bridge Projects.
Proj
36. Column 8 of the RR provide the eligibility criteria for the candidate applied by way of deputation/transfer candidates deputation/transfer/ promotion who are already in panels of Under Secretary in Government of India and Possessing the educational qualification stipulated in col col.No.7.
37. However, no education qualification is prescribed in column No.8 except to the candidate candidates who are applying by deputations/ transfer and already on the panel of Under Secretary in the Govt. of India and it is silent about candidates holding analogous post in a Central/State Government Department/Autonomous Body/Public Sector undertaking. Further no education qualification is prescribed in column No.8 or is silent about the candidates having 3 // 29 // OA/051/00446/2024 years regular service in the pay scale of ₹2200-4000 or 6 years ears in the scale of ₹2000-3500. Thus there are four different categories -
(i) Direct.
(ii) Deputation// Transfer from candidates already on
the panel of Under Secretary in the Govt. of India.
(iii) Holding analogous post in a Central/ State Government Deptt./ Autonomous body/ Public Sector undertaking.
(iv) Having 3 year regular service in the scale of Rs.
2200-4000 4000 or 6 year in the scale of Rs. 2000 2000-3500.
38. The Hon'ble High Court in para 33 of its order dt.
08/09.2022 concluded as under:
"........However, taking a cue therefrom in the facts of the present case it cannot be stated without risk that the position as propounded by the respondents is admitted or an indisputable position in law. There can be two interpretations of the recruitment rules and it cannot be said tthat hat only one conclusion or one interpretation is possible".
The aforesaid conclusion of the Hon'ble High Court was challenged by the Department in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which specific ground urged andargued on behalf of the Department as follows:
"Ground round B. Because the Hon'ble High Court erred in holding that there can be two interpretations of the Recruitment Rules and it cannot be said that only one conclusion or one interpretation of the Recruitment Rules is possible. It is submitted that the Recruitment Recruitment Rules can only be interpreted to mean that the requirement of a degree in Civil Engineering for being promoted to the post of "Manager (Technical)' in NHAI is mandatory. It is settled law that where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion conclusion is possible, the Court may not issue a writ to compel the observance of natural justice because courts do not issue futile writs. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court ought not to have interfered on the ground that a show cause was not issued."(Underlines issued." supplied for emphasis) // 30 // OA/051/00446/2024
39. The said ground was emphatically argued before the Supreme Court and the Apex Court did not agree with the said ground or argument of the Department and dismissed the SLP.
40. If respondents have taken this stand in court then it means that they have a closed mind and are not inclined to accept any other interpretation-
interpretation The sum and substance of judgment and reasoning of the High Court of Jharkhand was that a bare reading of RR for the post of Manager (Technical) clarifies that because of the use of expression 'or' in column 8, 4 different eligibility conditions are prescribed, while one of the eligibility conditions specified Degree in Engineering, whereas for category No. (iii) 4 (iv), no educational qualification so is permissible.
41. Though gh the advertisement so issued by NHAI for the post of Manager (Tech) was exclusively for deputation but in declaration mentioned at Point No.5 of Page No.5 of the said advertisement mentioned that "Regular employees of NHAI, who fulfill the eligibility conditions conditions prescribed for promotion to any of the above above--
mentioned posts, as on the last date for receipt of applications, may also apply. In case they are selected, their appointment will be on promotion basis as per the guidelines on the subject.
42. Nothing has as been prescribed for eligibility criterion in the advertisement for promotion aspects. At 1st para of advertisement it is mentioned that "In case of any discrepancies in eligibility/experience criteria, the Recruitment Rules as per NHAI Regulations shall prevail."
// 31 // OA/051/00446/2024
43. RR 1996 of NHAI is silent regarding requirement of degree in Civil Engineering for promotion to the post of Manager (Tech) for the candidates holding analogous post or with 3 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 2200 2200-4000 or 6 years in the scale of ₹2000--3500.
3500. Meaning thereby there was no requirement of Civil Engineering Degree for promotion to the post of Manager (Tech.) for regular employee of NHAI who fulfill other criterion.
44. The judgment dated 03.11.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (Supra) is not applicable in the determination of the case of applicant.
45. Applicant is a regular employee of the NHAI having experience of 6 years in grade pay ₹9300 ₹9300-34800 with GP 4200 and therefore eligible for promotion to the post of Manager (Tech.).
46. From the above, it is understood that possessing B. Tech degree was not only mode to determining eligibility criterion to the post of Manager (Tech) in NHAI. (i) The candidates holding analogous post in a Central/State Government Department/Autonomous Body/Public Sector Undertaking or (ii) the candidate having 3 years regular service in the scale of ₹2000-4000 4000 or
(iii) 6 years in the scale of ₹2000-3500 3500 were also eligible to the post of Manager (Technical) and for these three categories of candidates, Degree in Civil Engineering was not mandatorily required if they fulfill the other conditions of the RR.
47. In view of above factual discussion and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Suprem Supremee Court (as mentioned in para // 32 // OA/051/00446/2024 24 above) above) the balance of convenience is lying in favour of the applicant and we direct as under: -
(i) Recruitment Rules, 1996 of NHAI is very clear that there is no requirement of Degree of Civil Engineering for promotion to o the post of Manager (Tech) and Dy.
General Manager (Tech) for the regular employe employees.
es.
Applicant is a regular employee of the respondents.
(ii) Judgment dt. 3rd November, 2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Shankar hankar Patro & Ors. is not applicable and relevant for applicant.
(iii) Memorandum dt. 27th June, 2024 is accordingly set aside & subsequently, all memorandum issued by the respondents against the applicant with this issue are also set aside.
(iv) The existing position ion of applicant should be reinstated w.e.f. 27th June, 2024 with all consequential benefits including promotions and salary etc.
48. OA stands disposed of in terms of our directions as mentioned in Para 47 above.
above No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Member (J) Member (A)
sks/-