Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rafat Himayat Husain vs Union Of India & Others Through on 24 April, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.3552/2011 M.A.No.2599/2011 With O.A.No.4404/2011 M.A.No.3304/2011 Tuesday, this the 24th day of April, 2012 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) OA 3552/2011 1. Rafat Himayat Husain, Asst Engineer (E) s/o Shri I H Mufti r/o 24, Kalibari Apartment Udyan Marg, DIZ Area II New Delhi-1 2. Nafe Singh Kaushik, Asst. Engineer (E) s/o Shri Hazari lal r/o 4-1/Type IV Qtrs., Sector B Presidents Estate, New Delhi-4 3. Rajeev Kumar Manglik, Asst. Engineer (C) s/o Shri Narendra Nath Manglik r/o B-20, Type IV, Ekta Vihar Sector 25, CBD Belapur New Mumbai 400614 .. Applicants (Shri Atul Nanda, Senior Advocate (Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and Shri Rajat Brar, Advocates along with him) Versus Union of India & others through 1. The Secretary Govt. of India Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1 2. The Director General of Works Central Public Works Department Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 3. The Director Distance Education Council IGNOU Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-68 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Katyal for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Deputy Registrar (Legal) Ansar Hossain for Respondent No.3) OA 4404/2011 Om Prakash & others (as per memo of parties) .. Applicants (Shri Atul Nanda, Senior Advocate (Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and Shri Rajat Brar, Advocates along with him) Versus Union of India & others through 1. The Secretary Govt. of India Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1 2. The Director General of Works Central Public Works Department Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 3. The Director Distance Education Council IGNOU Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-68 ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Katyal for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Deputy Registrar (Legal) Ansar Hossain for Respondent No.3) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri M. L. Chauhan:
MA 2599/2011 in OA 3552/2011This MA seeking joining together in a single petition is allowed. OA 3552/2011 & OA 4404/2011 By this common order, we dispose of both the aforementioned OAs as the question of law raised in both the OAs is same.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned senior counsel appearing for applicants, while drawing our attention to the impugned order dated 30.8.2011, which is based on the public notice No.UB/02/(2)/2010 of AICTE, argued that the said impugned order has been passed without considering the fact that the applicants have obtained a degree from deemed university, which has the approval of DEC, as such it was not permissible for the respondents to pass the impugned order.
3. Learned senior counsel has also drawn our attention to the notification dated 28.10.1996 vide which the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment (Department of Urban Development) Central Engineering (Electrical and Mechanical) Group A Service Rules, 1996 have been notified and more particularly Rule I (ii) and Note I below Schedule III [see rule 7 (i)], which is to the following effect:-
(A) A candidate shall possess:-
(i) xx xx xx
(ii) an educational Institution established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, or xx xx xx Note I:
In exceptional cases, the Commission may treat a candidate, not possessing any of the above qualification, as educationally qualified provided that the Commission is satisfied that he has passed examinations conducted by other Institutions the standard of which in the opinion of the Commission, justified his admission to the examination. and argued that once the valid degree has been issued by the deemed university, it was not permissible for the respondents to pass impugned order and in case the degree obtained by the applicants is not of requisite standard, the matter has to be considered by the appropriate authority.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that he will be satisfied at this stage if the applicants herein are permitted to file representation, thereby taking all permissible grounds and the respondents are directed to consider the same in the light of the contentions raised therein and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a reasonable period.
5. In view of what has been stated above and without going into the merits of these matters and also the fact that contradictory judgments have been rendered by the different Benches of this Tribunal/Courts, we are of the view that it will be in the interest of justice if the issue is examined by the respondents at the first instance.
6. Accordingly, both the OAs are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make representation before the competent authority within a period of one week and in case such a representation is made by the applicants within a period of one week from today, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation from the applicants. No costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in both the files.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/