Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Muraleedharan B vs The Chairman And Managing Director on 16 May, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.180/00414 of 2015
Tuesday this the 16th day of May, 2017
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P. Gopinath, Administrative Member
Muraleedharan B, aged 49 years
S/o Bhaskaran, Telecom Mechanic, RTTC
BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram, residing at
Avittam, TC 19/1790, Kesavan Nair Road
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram.12.
... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Hariraj M.R)
Versus
1 The Chairman and Managing Director,
BSNL, New Delhi-110 011.
2 The Chief General Manager, Telecommunications,
Kerala Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. T.C. Krishna)
This application having been finally heard on 06.04.2017, the Tribunal on
16.05.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in refusing the applicant to appear for LICE for appointment as Telecom Technical Assistant on the ground that he does not satisfy the educational qualifications the applicant has moved this Tribunal. He seeks a declaration that he is eligible to appear for LICE to be conducted for promotion to the post of TTA as per Annexure A5 notification.
2. Here is the gist of the case pleaded by the applicant.
The applicant has been appointed as Telecom Mechanic in 2003 and since then he has been continuing so. He obtained a graduate degree from the University of Calicut. He has not originally undergone any regular plus two course. Persons with SSLC qualification like the applicant were permitted to appear for examination based on study materials given by the School of Education, Calicut University and those who pass such examination are permitted to appear for various graduate courses. Accordingly the applicant has appeared for the examination conducted by the Calicut University and passed the same. Based on the same he got admission to degree course and obtained degree certificate dated 9.1.2014 vide Annexure A2. Annexure A3 is the Recruitment Rule dated 25.8.2014. The LICE for 2014 was notified by Annexure A4 dated 4.3.2015. The applicant being qualified applied for the post but it was rejected as per Annexure A1 stating that he is not educationally qualified. The applicant who had secondary education underwent the preparatory course and wrote entrance examination equivalent to plus two and then obtained graduate degree. As such the aforestated qualification must be treated as equivalent to plus two qualification going by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The possession of higher qualification in such circumstances is to be treated as possession of lower qualification also. Hence the applicant seeks the reliefs as stated earlier.
3. The claim is resisted by the respondents contending as follows.
Examination is conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations. With a view to tone up the efficiency in service certain changes were made by the competent authority to improve the quality of manpower of the organization. Many posts were upgraded by changing the minimum qualification, eligibility conditions etc. That was necessitated to commensurate with the raised status and pay of the post. The appointment to the post of TTA is regulated by the rule called TTA Rules 2014. The rule has been issued with the approval of the BSNL Board which is the apex body of the company. For the post of TTA against 50% quota non-executive employees of BSNL below the age of 55 years as on the Ist July of the vacancy year will be eligible provided they possess 10+2 standard qualification or equivalent or two years ITI certificate/three years diploma in specified disciplines as mentioned in column 7 of TTA RR of 2014. It was in accordance with the same Annexure A4 notification was issued. The applicant is not holding 10+2 qualification or any other qualification as prescribed in Annexure R3 Rules and as such he is not eligible to write the examination for the Recruitment year 2014. As per the University Rules, possessing a Plus Two pass is not a criteria for admission to undergo graduate degree course through distance education. Candidates possessing Graduate degree or diploma obtained directly, without 10+2 standard of open universities are not eligible to appear for LICE for TTA vide Annexure R2. The Bachelors' Degree obtained by the applicant without completing Plus Two course cannot held to be valid for the purpose of recruitment to the post of TTA. Thus the respondents contend that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief and so the application is liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and have also gone through the pleadings and documents.
5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to appear for LICE for promotion to the cadre of TTA as per Annexure A3 notification?
6. Annexure A1 is the notice dated 21.5.2015 by which some of the candidates mentioned in the list were shown to have not satisfied the educational qualification. The name of the applicant figures at Sl.No.17 in Annexure III to the said letter dated 21.5.2015. The applicant and so many other persons were also seen to have not possessed the educational qualification.
7. Annexure A3 is the Recruitment Rules dated 25.8.2014. Eligibility criteria for appearing in LICE are as follows:
'The following Non-executive employees of BDNL below the age of 55 years as on Ist July of the vacancy year are eligible provided they are possessing 10+2 standard qualification or equivalent or two years ITI certificate/three years diploma in specified disciplines as mentioned in Column 7 after matriculation'
8. The main plank of the contention raised by the applicant is that he has obtained graduate degree from the University of Calicut and since the graduate degree certificate issued by the University of Calicut is of higher qualification than pass in Plus Two or equivalent examination, the respondents are not justified in holding that the applicant does not have the required educational qualification. The applicant himself admits that he had not undergone any regular plus two course but the applicant has SSLC qualification. According to him persons with SSLC qualification are permitted to take examination at plus two level based on study material given by the school of distance education, Calicut University and those who pass such examination are permitted to get admission to various graduate courses. Thus according to the applicant he was permitted to take part in that examination based on study materials and thereafter he got admission to the graduate course and later he appeared in the examination conducted by the University and passed the same. Annexure A2 is the certificate produced by the applicant which has been pressed into service to advance the case of the applicant that he does possess the required qualification.
9. Annexure A2 would show that it was only a one year course and that his registration was in September, 2011. It it seen certified that the applicant had completed the course in April, 2012 and thus Annexure A2 certificate has been issued. Unlike a regular degree course where a student has to undergo three years course of study it is not such a degree that has been conferred by Annexure A2. Two documents are seen produced by the respondents along with the reply statement. Though the respondents have marked those two documents as Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) the marking is found to be defective. It should be marked as Annexures R1 and R2. Annexure R1 is the document dated 18.5.2015 and Annexure R2 is the docuemnt dated 13.5.2015. (It shall be read as R1 and R2 - since no other document is seen produced by the applicant as Annexures R1 and R2). In Annexure R1 dated 18.5.2015 the BSNL Board has issued direction with respect to the educational qualification which states that the intermediate course of NIOS and APOSS are recognized as equivalent to the intermediate course offered in the normal system by the Board of Intermediate Education, AP, Hyderabad and as such those candidates possessing such qualification are eligible to appear for LICE for TTA. But it has been stated that as regards candidates possessing higher qualification; namely post graduate/graduate degree/diploma obtained directly without 10+2 standard from open universities, the same are not eligible to appear for the LICE for TTA. This has been very much emphasized to contend that so far as the applicant is concerned he is not eligible to appear in the LICE for TTA in view of the fact that he has obtained the graduate degree directly (Annexure A2) without undergoing the 10+2 (plus 2) course.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the candidates are eligible to appear for the examination provided they are possessing 10+2 standard qualification or equivalent or two year ITI certificate. The word 'or equivalent' is very much emphasized by the applicant to contend that the applicant was permitted to take an examination at the plus two level based on study material given by school of distance education and so it should be treated as equivalent. Since that is the recruitment rule, the effect of the same cannot be belittled or nullified by issuing clarification or orders like Annexure R1 projected by the respondents, the applicant further contends. Annexure R2 letter dated 13.5.2015 has been relied upon by the respondents to contend that the letter issued from the Director of the University of Calicut to the Assistant General Manager of the BSNL would make it clear that the applicant was a student of school of distance education, University of Calicut for BA Sociology course and that he was admitted to one year degree course in 2008 on the basis of an entrance test conducted by the University. It was further stated that the requisite qualification for appearing in the entrance examination is completion of 18 years of age as on July Ist of that particular year. Therefore, the respondents would submit that it is not a regular degree course of three years duration but it is only a degree given under the distance education scheme where it is only a one year degree course as specified in Annexure R2 just mentioned above. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that it is not a case where the applicant had acquired any higher educational qualification. Admittedly the applicant had not undergone the plus two course and so obtaining of a certificate of one year degree course, bye-passing the plus two course, cannot be accepted as the required educational qualification which is prescribed under Annexure R3.
11. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrakala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others - 2012 (3) SCC 129 in support of his submission that the word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning which would mean that there is some degree of flexibility or adjustment which does not lower the stated requirements. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
'8. The word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression, 'equivalent' one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence.' That was a case where the applicant was provisionally selected and so it was held that certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence. But that is not the case here the learned counsel for the respondents submits. The basic qualification was Senior Secondary or Intermediate or its equivalent. On the basis of the qualification the applicant was provisionally selected after she had submitted the requisite testimonials. In that case the educational qualification required for appointment to Level.II was upper primary middle school section, Sr.Secondary school certification or intermediate or its equivalent and diploma or certificate in elementary school training of duration of not less than two years or Bachelor of Elementary Education or graduate with Bachelor of Education or its equivalent. It was contended that at the time when she (the applicant therein) appeared for the secondary examination it was permissible for the candidates to get admission to higher classes with a preparatory course and thereafter the applicant had completed her graduation and then got her BEd degree on a regular basis and she also got her MA degree from the same university. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the facts dealt with therein are not applicable to the facts of this case since because here the applicant did not get the degree certificate after undergoing the three year degree course but obtained a degree through distance education scheme, that too only of one year duration. Admittedly the applicant did not have the basic qualification of plus two as mentioned in Annexure R3 the Recruitment Rules. It was so made specific by Annexure R1 dated 18.5.2015.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Govt. Information and Tourism department - (2009) 4 SCC 590. That was a case where one Ramesh who was holding a diploma in film technology, had also the requisite experience of 5 years as Head of Station. But he obtained the MA degree in open university system in an examination held by the appellant Annamalai University. The Division Bench of Madras High Court held 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. The challenge in that case was to the qualification of Ramesh that he did not possess the basic graduation degree and thus the PG degree conferred on him by the appellant university is invalid in law. In fact in that case the ex-post facto recognition of the M.A degree granted by the Distance Education Council was wholly without jurisdiction. UGC Regulation, 1985 with regard to the same was considered in that case by which it was made specific that no student shall be eligible to seek admission to the Master Degree programme without first completing the degree course of three years duration. Therefore, the learned counsel for Respondents would submit that obtaining of a degree certificate through distance education system or council by the applicant, of a course of duration of one year cannot be made equivalent and cannot be treated as a higher educational qualification than what has been prescribed under Annexure A3. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University (supra) this Tribunal had occasion to hold that such a certificate issued to a candidate who had not undergone the regular course of study prescribed by the rules cannot be treated as valid. One such decision was rendered in Praveenkuamr Vs. BSNL - OA 1032/2012 dated 10.2.2015. After scanning the entire material we are of the view that the applicant herein did not have the basic required qualification of plus two as mentioned in Annexure A3. Annexure A2 certificate obtained by the applicant under the distance education system course of one eyar cannot be treated as equivalent to the plus two course mandated by Annexure A3. Therefore, in the light of what have been stated above we hold that the rejection of the applicant's candidature on the ground that he did not have the educational qualification cannot be faulted with. As such this OA must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mrs. P. Gopinath) (N. K. Balakrishnan)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
kspps