Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Bhushan Kumar vs M/O Railways on 8 August, 2025
Reserved on 05.08.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 08th day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'bleMr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1436 of 2024
Bhushan Kumar aged about 31 years, son of Sri Ramnandan
Paswan, Resident of Village - Dariyachak, Post - Khulelpur, Police
Station - Athmalgola Dariyachak, Patna (Bihar)
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through Chairman Ministry of Railways, Railway
Recruitment Boards, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorkahpur.
3. The Director, Establishment (RANBO), Railway Board, New
Delhi.
4. The Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur through Chairman.
5. The General Manager (Karmic), Modern Coach Factory,
Raebareli.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"i. To issue a suitable order / direction quashing and set aside the order impugned dated 15.10.2024 passed by respondent no 4 (Annexure No. A-1) to the OA with Compilation No I. RITU RAJ SINGH
1|Page ii. To issue a suitable order / direction, directing the respondents authorities to issue of formal an appointment letter to the applicant in view of the offer of appointment letter dated 07.07.2017 to the selected post of Junior Engineer / Mechanical in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- within a stipulated period of time as specified by this Hon'ble tribunal.
iii. To issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To award the cost of the application to the applicant."
3. A compendium of the facts as have been narrated in the present original application is thatthe applicant possessed the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He passed the aforesaid Diploma from Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University Pratap Nagar, Udainagar in the year 2010. It has been contended in the OA that Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University Pratap Nagar, Udainagar was declared as deemed to be University by the Central Government on the advice of the U.G.C. under section 3 of UGC Act, 1956 and notified as such in the official Gazette on 12th January 1987. An advertisement was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board in the various newspapers for the post of Junior Engineer Group Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- and SSE Group -Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-. Applicant applied for the post of Junior Engineer and thereafter call letter was issued in favour of the applicant for appearing in the written examination. Applicant appeared in the written examination test held on 14.12.2014 in which he was succeeded. Thereafter, a call letter for interview and document verification has been issued to the applicant. Pursuant to call letter, applicant appeared in the interview in which he qualified. Result was declared but the name of applicant was not mentioned in the list of final result. Being aggrieved, applicant approached before the respondent NO.4 and filed an application dated 06.03.2017 with regard to declaring his result. When no action was taken by the respondents on the application of the applicant dated 06.03.2017 then RITU RAJ SINGH
2|Page he filed another application dated 20.03.2017 with the same prayer. After verification of certificates and other academic records, the result of applicant has been declared by the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 10.04.2017, in which he was selected for the aforesaid post under unreserved category. Thereafter respondent No. 5 has issued an offer of appointment to the applicant on the post of Junior Engineer vide letter dated 07.07.2017. It has been contended by the applicant that pursuant to the offer of appointment, he appeared before the respondent No.5 and submitted all the requisite documents for verification and joining of his service but respondents' authority has not issued the appointment letter in his favour and not permitted him to join his service. In this regard, a representation was submitted by the applicant to which initially there was no any reply at the end of the respondents. Subsequently, the applicant approached before the Tribunal vide OA No. 166 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2024 and respondents were directed to decide the representation of the applicant. In compliance, the respondents decide the representation of the applicant and rejected the same citing the same reason that the educational qualification certificate rendered by the applicant is not proper. Thus, the instant original application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 15.10.2024 which was passed on the representation of the applicant and he seeks direction to the respondents to grant him appointment on the basis of offer of appointment already issued to him.
Respondents have filed counter affidavit in which they have submitted that although offer of appointment was issued to the applicant, but during process of document verification, it was found that the diploma possessed by the applicant is not from the recognized institution and therefore his candidature was liable to be rejected and the same has been done. Thus, no illegality can be attributed to the impugned order.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record.
RITU RAJ SINGH
3|Page
5. Initiating his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant possessed the qualification diploma of Mechanical Engineering issued from Janardhan Rai Nagar, Rajashthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University Pratap Nagar, Udaipur in the year 2010. The applicant had earlier approached before this Tribunal through OA no. 166 of 2019 which was decided on 07.08.2024 directing the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant. It was further argued that the applicant's representation was rejected vide the impugned order on insufficient grounds. It was also argued that applicant was permitted to appear in all the stages of the examination and he was declared successful and was placed in the merit list. At one stage, the offer of appointment was also issued. When the applicant appeared before the respondents concerned, he was not permitted to join. The appointment of the applicant was withheld. Later on, it was informed that educational qualification possessed by the applicant was not at par with the notification. It is further argued that institution concerned from where the applicant had obtained the diploma in Mechanical Engineering was a recognized institution from the AICTE. The respondents ought to have checked this issue at initial stage itself. Once they have permitted the applicant to appear in all the stages of the examination, they are estopped to withhold / cancel the appointment of the applicant after selection. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the documents annexed with the OA and also on the following case laws:
i.Judgment dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs Uzair Imran &Ors reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 1032.
ii. Judgmentdated13.02.2019 passed by the Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 616 of 2013 titled D Anand Vs Union of India and Ors.
RITU RAJ SINGH
4|Page
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by him in the matter and argued that time and again, University Grants Commission (UGC) has clarified that institution concerned from where the applicant had obtained his diploma degree is recognized to conduct the technical education also. Thus, argued to allow the OA thereby setting aside the order dated 15.10.2024 and to direct the respondents to issue offer of appointment afresh to the applicant against the selected post.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of the applicant's counsel and by way of counter affidavit, he argued that the applicant had earlier approachedthis Tribunal through OA No. 166 of 2019 which was decided on 09.08.2024 by this Bench. Prayer regarding issuance of offer of appointment was not pressed by the applicant and only limited prayer was made during the argument to issue direction to the respondents to decide the representation. It was further argued that since institution concerned was not recognized to conduct the technical education through distant mode and at the time of document verification, this fact was detected thus offer of appointment issued to the applicant was withheld. It was next argued that no institution is authorized by the competent authority to conduct technical / professional course through distant mode. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment and order passed by this Bench on 14.07.2023 in OA No. 1439 of 2016 titled Shri Narayan Das Vs Union of India and others and argued that the aforesaid OA was decided relying on the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeal No 17869 to 17870 of 2017 wherein it was clearly held that deemed to be universities were not justified in introducing any new courses in technical education without the approval of AICTE. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has suspended the degrees in engineering awarded by the concerned deemed universities. Ex post facto approval granted by the UGC was also set aside. Not only this, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also held that degrees in engineering awarded by the deemed to be RITU RAJ SINGH
5|Page universities through distant education mode shall stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. It was also argued that respondents are not estopped to recheck the eligibility of the candidate although the applicant was permitted to appear in all the stages of the examination but at the time of document verification, this fact came into light and thus respondents have rightly passed the impugned order. It is also argued that there was justifiable reason to withhold the offer of appointment. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the supplementary counter affidavit and further argued that no illegality, infirmity or perversity can be attributed to the impugned orders, the OA lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully gone through the entire records including the counter, supplementary counter and supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant and minutely perused the case laws relied upon.
9. As the brief facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. Before discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties:
Referring to the case of Uzair Imran (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following portion contained therein:
"15. Notwithstanding this settled legal position, the stage when ineligibility is cited for not offering employment also assumes importance. It is indeed indisputable that none has any legal right to claim public employment. In terms of Article 16 of the Constitution, a candidate has only a right to be considered therefor. Once a candidate is declared ineligible to participate in the selection process at the threshold and if he still wishes to participate in the process perceiving that his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected, it is for him to work out his remedy in accordance with law. However, if the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list - though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment - he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and nondiscriminatory treatment. Given the stages of the process that the RITU RAJ SINGH
6|Page candidate has successfully crossed, he may not have a vested right of appointment but a reasonable expectation of being appointed having regard to his position in the merit list could arise. The employer, if it is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would have no authority to act in an arbitrary manner and throw the candidate out from the range of appointment, as distinguished from the zone of consideration, without rhyme or reason. The employer-State being bound by Article 14 of the Constitution, the law places an obligation, nay duty, on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason. If plausible justification is provided, the courts would be loath to question the justification but the justification must be such that it is rational and justifiable, and not whimsical or capricious, warranting non- interference."
Similarly, referring to the case of D Anand (supra) decided by the Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following portion contained therein:
"9. Counsel for the Respondents has also cited the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi in Sh.Shashikant v. Union of India in O.A.No.2917/2010, dated 15.09.2011, wherein it was held that "there was no necessity for conveying approval from UGC. The letter of AICTE dated 04.10.2007 stating that degrees/diplomas obtained through Distance mode and approved by DEC did not require AICTE approval and all other relevant documents cited in that letter were in support of the contention that the programme had the approval of DEC and other authorities"
In addition to aforesaid case laws, the applicant has also placed reliance upon several notifications / memorandums / letters / orders viz. (i) letter of UGC dated 14.10.2013 issued to all the Registrars / Directors of the Indian Universities (Deemed, Central Universities /Institutions of National Importance), (ii) notification dated 19.08.2003 issued vide No. F.31-01/98U 3 by the GoI Ministry of Human Resource and Devleopment , Department of Secondary and Higher Education, (iii) Compilation of notifications dated 16.03.2017, 12.01.1987, 19.08.2003, 25.11.1985, 26.09.2001, 21.08.2001, 10.04.2001, 03.07.2006, 29.08.2007, 03.09.2007, Novermber 2007, 08.10.2008, 11.10.2011 by UGC and other associated bodies to justify the fact that the institution concerned in the instant case was a recognized one.
RITU RAJ SINGH
7|Page
10. In this matter, the applicant had earlier approached before this Tribunal when offer of appointment issued in his favour was withheld by the respondents. In the said OA No 166 of 2019, vide order dated 09.08.2024, only relief was allowed to the applicant by way of a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant. It further appears that in compliance of the direction, the impugned order was passed rejecting the claim of the applicant mentioning therein that the applicant has obtained technical education through distant mode and the notification itself contained that degree / diploma of engineering obtained through distant mode shall not be recognized. It is also evident from the record that while deciding the OA No. 1439 of 2016 (supra), this Bench on 14.07.2023 specifically held that degree or diploma in engineering awarded through the distant education mode by the deemed universities is not valid one.
11. Furthermore, if the ratio laid down in the aforesaid quoted cases are taken into consideration, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held in the case of Uzair Imran (supra) that if the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list - though such candidature has no indefeasible right to claim appointment - he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment. It has also been held that an employer State being bound by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the law places an obligation on such an employer to provide some justification by way of reason while withdrawing offer of appointment. If plausible justification is provided, the Courts would be loathe questioning the justification but the justification must be such that it is rational and justifiable, and not whimsical or capricious. In the present matter, if the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 17869 and 17870 of 2017 passed on 03.11.2017 is taken into consideration, it can be held that deemed universities are not allowed to conduct engineering courses through distant education mode.
RITU RAJ SINGH
8|Page
12. In the present matter, it is not disputed between the parties that the applicant's diploma in Mechanical Engineering is from a deemed university institution. Also, as regards to the several notifications / memorandums / letters / orders which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant and have been quoted earlier in this judgment, it is pertinent to record that none of those letters or notifications cogently establishes that approval of the competent authority was ever granted to the institution concerned to conduct the technical degree on distant education mode and therefore the said notifications do not help the case of the applicant in any way. To establish this case better, it would be in the fitness of things to refer to the observations recorded in the case of Sri Narayan Das (supra) by this Bench of the Tribunal and the same are quoted herein below:
"10. In the impugned order dated 29th September, 2016, the respondents have clearly mentioned that the Engineering Diploma acquired by the applicant from JanardanRai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Udaipur through Gyan Devi Institute of Management & Technology does not have due recognition from the apex bodies. It implies that the applicant does not have requisite minimum qualification for the post under DRTC norms. The applicant in his undertaking dated 28.11.2014 has mentioned as follows :-
UNDERTAKING "With reference to your letter No.DMS/QSP/AdmRP/11/F/AE/0552/DRTC/LDCE/2014 dated 27th November 2014 for appointment of undersigned to the post of STA 'B' through LDCE 2014, I undertake that in case my qualification and it's recognition by the competent bodies does not found true, the appointment to the post shall deemed to be cancelled from the date of joining.
I also undertake that I will submit the authenticated documents in support of my qualification and it's recognition by the competent authority within 02 months from date of assumption of higher post, failing which you will be free to take action as deemed fit and under these circumstances, I will not go for any litigation."
In a letter dated 20.05.2015 asked to submit his report regarding an advertisement of AICTE in its website which is quoted below :-
As per AICTE Public Notice Advertisement No.UB/08(01)/2010 -
RITU RAJ SINGH
9|Page " It has been the policy of AICTE, not to recognize the qualifications acquired through distance education made at Diploma, Bachelors & Masters level in the field of Engineering Technology, Architecture Town Planning, Pharmacy, HMCT, Applied Arts & Craft and PGDM."
The applicant has not given any satisfactory and authentic reply to the above instructions by the respondents.
11. In a letter dated 23.02.2016 University Grants Commission has informed that UGC has not granted any permission to Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan to conduct courses in the field of Engineering and Technology under regular mode or to establish any study centre within or outside the State of Rajasthan. No institution is allowed to offer technical course through distance mode. University Grants Commission in a letter dated 11.03.2015 has given the following public notice, which reads as under :-
UNIVERSTTY GRANTS COMMISSION (Distance Education Bureau) 35, Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi-l10001 (www.ugc.ac.in/deb/) F.No.UGC/DEB/Tech.Edu/1/2015 Dated: 11-03-2015 PUBLIC NOTICE On Professional Courses in Engineering & Technology through ODL mode The erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC) earlier, on receipt of direction from Ministry of Human Resource Development, wrote to all Institutions providing programmes through open and Distance learning mode to stop offering BE/B.tech programme through Distance learning mode from the year 2009- 10.
2. AICTE in 2010 and 20ll also, notified its policy not to recognise the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at Diploma, Bachelors & Master's level in the field of Engineering and Technology including Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts & Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM). AICTE thus recognizes only MBA and MCA programmes through distance mode, provided it had the approval of Joint Committee of DEC & UGC and the recognition status was notified on AICTE web portal.
3. The University Grants Commission, after taking over the regulatory function of erstwhile DEC and as per mandate given to it by Ministry of Human Resource Development to regulate Open and Distance Leaming in Universities and Affiliated Colleges has decided that:
(i) No University/Institution deemed to be university/institution should offer Diploma, Bachelor s and Master's level programme in Engineering and Technology other than MBA and MCA till the finalization of UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2014 or notification of relevant Regulations by an independent regulatory authority established by Central govt. to deal with ODL education in higher education system in the country, whichever is earlier.
(ii) UGC/AICTE will take action against those Universities/ Institution Deemed to be Universities/Institutions which are conducting RITU RAJ SINGH 10 | P a g e professional courses in Engineering and Technology in ODL mode (other than MBA and MCA)
4. UGC has also decided not to consider any request for ex-post facto approval for ODL programmes offered by any University/Institution deemed to be University/institution at this stage.
The above is for information of all concerned, including students and parents.
Secretary, UGC The Public notice issued by AICTE in Advertisement No.UB/04(04)/2010 has mentioned that :-
PUBLIC NOTICE It has come to the notice of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) that certain Universities/State Universities/Deemed Universities/Institutions are giving misleading advertisements in the newspapers for admission in technical education programmes in distance mode indicating that they have approval of the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC for various programmes.
It has been the policy of the AICTE, not to recognize the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at Diploma, Bachelors & Master's level in the field of Engineering, Technology including Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts & Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM). AICTE only recognize MBA and MCA programme through distance mode.
All the existing students/prospective students pursuing/waiting to pursue any educational programme in the above mentioned field are hereby advised to check the approval by Join-Committee of DEC, UGC and on AICTE's web portal at wwww.aicte-india.org. In the absence of the said approval, even the MBA & MCA qualifications acquired through distance mode may not be recognized for the purpose of employment under Central Government.
MEMBER SECRETARY A writ Petition(C) No.16718 of 2013 Vs. AICTE on 6 September, 2013, which reads as under :-
"............apex bodies in the country such as AICTE is required to be obtained for which the responsibility vests with the university concerned."
(underlined for emphasis) From the aforesaid letter, it is amply clear that the Distance Education Council (DEC) has accorded post-facto approval to JRN University for offering programmes through distance mode and thus DEC has not accorded approval to any specific programme offered by the above University. It is further clarified that in cases of technical and provisional programmes offered by the University wherever required approval from the concerned apex body in the country, such as AICTE is required to be obtained for which responsibility vests with the University. The said letter further reveals that the responsibility vested with JRN University to obtain approval from the apex body such as AICTE. Needless to say that the petitioner RITU RAJ SINGH 11 | P a g e in the present case claims that he has secured qualification in Bachelor in Technical Education, i.e., B.Tech.from JRN University. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner fails to produce any document regarding grant of approval from AICTE in respect of Technical professional qualification acquired by the petitioner from the said JRN University as clarified in the aforesaid letter of the Director of IGNOU.
(b) Secondly, the minutes of the meeting on the issue of recognition of diploma awarded by JRN University by Distance Education Council held on 4.6.2009, inter alia, contains the following :
"The AICTE nominee informed that they have not recognized the diploma in engineering course offered by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeetha. Further the AICTE nominee informed the members that AICTE does not accord recognition to technical programmes offered through distance mode and till date they have got (sic) given any approval to start any technical programme through distance education. AICTE Council has recommended not to start any programme through distance education except MBA, MCA and DBM."
The minutes of the meeting further contains the relevant Clause of the MoU signed between UGC, AICTE and DEC as under :
" Based on the recommendations of Joint Committee, the letter of approval may be issued by the Joint Committee. The letter should explicitly state. This has the approval of UGC/AICTE and DEC. The letter should be jointly signed by Secretary, UGC Member Secretary, AICTE and Director, DEC."
The petitioner failed to produce any letter of approval issued by the Joint Committee jointly signed by the Secretary, UGC, Member Secretary AICTE and Director DEC in respect of courses offered by JRN University, Rajasthan.
9. Law is well-settled that education is national wealth. Merit and excellence assume special significance in the context of professional studies. Selection for admission is necessarily to be merit based. Merit of the student is sole criteria and there is no substitution of it.
10. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interim protection and accordingly the misc. case is dismissed."
12. In an OA No.2914 of 2010 - Dina KrushnaBarik Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, PB Delhi has considered the issue that status of the JanardanRai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University under UGC Act is accepted. The Degree of Diploma in Engineering awarded through distance education by the said deemed University was not in dispute the only dispute whether they have got approval from AICTE to award the above degree was in question. On the basis of issue discussed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.142009 and CWP No.21331 of 2008, the Tribunal has allowed the above OA. Later, the issue was discussed in Civil Appeal No. 17869 and 17870 of 2017 in the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has concluded that :-
(i) 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the approval of AICTE.
RITU RAJ SINGH 12 | P a g e
(ii) Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001- 2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
(iii) Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended."
They have further directed that the degrees in Engineering awarded by deemed to be Universities through Distance Education mode shall stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn. The Hon'ble Apex Court further directed the CBI to investigate into the conduct of the concerned officials who delth with the matters and went about granting permission against the policy statement. In a letter dated 20.03.2018 the University Grants Commission has mentioned that no university is authorised to offer technical and professional programme through distance mode. In circular F.No. : AICTE/P&AP/Misc/2020 dated 30.12.2020 has mentioned that AICTE has not given the approval for conducting Diploma courses in Engineering through Distance Education mode to any Technical Institution. In the light of above discussions, it is clear that the status of JanardanRai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University status is not in dispute. They have run various programme through of campus study centre. But the diploma in Electrical Engineering obtained by the applicant through Distance learning mode is not valid as the institute was not authorised to run outside campus course of diploma in Engineering discipline without the approval of AICTE. The applicant in good faith have enrolled in the course, spent his valuation time and money to acquire the qualification. Based on the above qualification, he was promoted and when issue of validity/recognition of such degree came, it has been clearly established that the Institution was not authorised by the competent authority to conduct such course through distance learning mode and the matter has been deliberated in detail by Apex Court and concluded that such degrees are not recognized degree. Hence, the applicant has failed to establish his claim in support of relief claimed. The OA deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs."
13. In the instant case applicant candidature was cancelled/withheld at the stage of joining the service but for doing so justifiable ground has been given as the applicant educational qualification was not in accordance with notification and this fact although have been overlooked at initial stage of scrutiny but detected before permitting the applicant to join the duty. Thus, test set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uzair Imran (supra) case is fulfilled.
RITU RAJ SINGH 13 | P a g e
14. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the instant case is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits. The effect and operation of the impugned order stands intact. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
14 | P a g e