Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sofia Bano vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2024
O.A./1916/2010
(Reserved on 26.02.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.1916 of 2010
th
Pronounced on this the 12 Day of March, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Sofia Bano D/o S.A. Khan R/o 158 Police Chowki, Behind St. Judes
School, R/o 158 Police Chowki, Behind St. Judes School, Prem Nagar,
Jhansi 284003
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Chairman Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Saurabh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to declare the applicant successful in the examination of Assistant Loco Pilot.
ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as an Assistant Loco Pilot in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/- pursuant to passing the competitive examination conducted by respondent No.2 in view of its notification No. 2/2008 dated 23.07.2008.
iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.Page 1 of 6
O.A./1916/2010
iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant."
2. A brief summary of the facts involved in this case is that the applicant underwent a diploma engineering from Veerangana Jhalkari Mahila Polytechnic, an institute affiliated with the Board of Technical Education U.P. Lucknow, after completion of High School, in the Branch of Instrumentation and Control Engineering and completed the aforesaid three years diploma course in the year 2005. Subsequently, pursuant to the notification No. 2/2008 dated 23.07.2008 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad, the applicant applied for the post of Loco Pilot after which the applicant was issued an admit card for appearing in the preliminary examination on 14.12.2008 in which the applicant qualified and she was issued an admit card for appearing in the main examination held on 06.06.2009. After qualifying the main examination, there was a Psycho test for which the applicant was issued an admit card on 06.07.2010 and the applicant qualified in the same. The applicant was served with a letter intimating her to appear before the Respondents on 30.11.2010 for verification of documents. Finally, while concluding the counseling, the respondents put a remark against the name of the applicant as "not applicable". The applicant forthwith made an enquiry and the authority informed her that she has been declared unfit for not possessing the requisite qualification in the courses as required for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. Aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, the applicant made a detailed representation on 01.12.2010 before the respondents.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Refuting the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the educational qualification notified for the post of Asstt. Loco Pilot was High School pass along with ITI/ Act apprentice in the following trades - Fitter, electrician, instrument mechanic (Not instrumentation), Mill Wright/ Maintenance Mechanic, Mechanic Motor Vehicle, Wireman, Page 2 of 6 O.A./1916/2010 Tractor Mechanic, Armature, & Coil winder, Diesel Mechanic/ Heat Engineer, Turner, Machinist, RAC or Three years Diploma in Mechanical/ Electrical/ Electronics/ Automobile Engg- whereas the applicant possessed educational qualification of Diploma in "Instrumentation & Control Engineering" which is not a requisite qualification as notified in the Employment Notice No. 2/2008. It is also submitted that the educational qualification is fixed by the Railway Board which is an apex policy making authority in Railways and no change of educational qualification is permissible. He states that the applicant was provisionally called for the written examination and psychological test while during the document verification, it was found that the applicant possesses as educational qualification a Diploma in "Instrumentation & Control Engineering" which is not a requisite educational qualification as per Railway Recruitment Board, Allahabad's Employment Notice No. 2/2008 for the post of Asstt. Loco Pilot. It is mentioned that in view of large number of application, it is not possible to scrutinize all the applications before holding written examination or psychological test and the Railway Recruitment Board reserves the right to cancel the candidature of the applicant at any stage of selection if any discrepancies are found as also notified under para 13 of the Employment Notice.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant states in his rejoinder that the respondents have merely mentioned the description of trades and branches which are alleged to be a requisite qualification for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. The notification for the aforesaid post also speaks about equivalent qualification and the respondents at no point of time have said that the branch of the engineering from which the applicant has completed her diploma course is not an equivalent branch to the Electronic Engineering. More so the applicant has applied for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot six times and most of all times cleared the aforesaid selection up to the stage of psycho examination but the applicant has never been denied appearance on the ground of any want of qualification. He Page 3 of 6 O.A./1916/2010 emphasizes that the Engineering Branch i.e. Instrumentation and Control is an advance course of Electronic Engineering which consists of all the subjects of Electronic Engineering which is evident from the mark sheet of the applicant. He states that a bare perusal of the letter dated 30.11.2010 itself go to show that the authorities present in the counseling had an authority to only verify the original testimonials of the applicant which have been initially annexed with the application form and it was never within their domain to question the eligibility of the applicant at such a later stage when all the final selectees are due for offer of posting consequent to passing the aforesaid selection.
6. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for both the pirates, and perused the entire documents on record.
7. A perusal of the notification No. 2/2008 dated 23.07.2008 clarifies that the educational qualification for the post of Asstt. Loco Pilot (Sl.33) are "Passed High School with ITI/Act appt. in any of following trades (1) Fitter, (2) Electrician, (3) Instrument Mechanic. (4) Mill wright/Maintenance Mechanic, (5) Mechanic (Radio & TV) (6) Electronics Mechanic, (7) Mechanic (Motor Vehicle). (8) Wireman, (9) Tractor Mechanic, (10) Armature & Coil winder, (11) Mechanic (Diesel) (12) Heat Engine. (13) Turner, (14) Machinist, (15) Refrigeration & Air Condition Mechanic or Three years Diploma in Mechanical/ Electrical/ Electronics/ Automobile Engg. in lieu of ITI.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors VS. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors (Civil Appeal Nos. 11853-11854 of 2018) decided on 05.12.2018, para 22 of which reads as under :
"We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher Page 4 of 6 O.A./1916/2010 qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications an a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could pre- suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench."
9. The contention of the applicant that she was denied the selection at the last stage of the process whereas she qualified all the previous stages and the respondents did not question her qualification during those stages cannot sustain since it has been clarified in the para 13 of the recruitment notice dated 23.07.2008 that the decision of RRB in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of the application etc. will be final and binding on the candidates and no enquiry or correspondences will be entertained by the Railway Recruitment Board in this regard. It is specifically the process of document verification where the authenticity of the possession of the requisite qualification is examined which might not be possible at the earlier stages. Furthermore, the claim of the applicant about possessing a qualification equivalent to that required for the post she applied for is up to the recruiting agency to determine and the intervention of this Tribunal is only called for in case of arbitrariness and illegality. The judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors VS. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors (Supra) as quoted above amply explains that in absence of any rule stating otherwise, it would not be permissible to draw an Page 5 of 6 O.A./1916/2010 inference that a higher qualification (higher qualification in different stream) necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification the prescription of which, is a matter of recruitment policy which the employer is entitled to prescribe and decide who possess it. Therefore, the applicant in the present case cannot claim to be in possession of an equivalent qualification as prescribed in the notification for possessing qualification in another advanced course and the Tribunal finds no illegality in the action of the respondents.
10. In light of the above facts and deliberations, we are of the view that this O.A. is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Page 6 of 6