Union of India and Others v. Praveen M. and Anuraj K.R.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/16TH JYAISHTA 1934 OP (CAT).No. 1700 of 2012 (Z) ----------------------------AGAINST ORDER IN OA.846/2011 DATED 23/02/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI- 3. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. PRAVEEN M., S/O.C.K. MANI, RESIDING AT KALLUPURAYIL, S.V. M. POST OFFICE, AYANI SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - PIN 690 518. 2. ANURAJ K.R., S/O. RAMARAJAN PILLAI, KALOOR, MANAPPALLY SOUGHT, S.R.P.M. (P.O.), KARUNAGAPPALLUY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 1700 of 2012 (Z) ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.09.2011 RENDERED BY THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA. NO.818 OF 2011. - EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.846 OF 2011 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. - EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 09.01.2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO.846 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. - EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.10.2011 RENDERED IN O.A. NO.846 OF 2011 BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. - EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 09.01.2012 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN O.A. NO.846 OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. - EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF REPLY ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R4 DATED 27.01.2012 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE REJOINDER DATED 09.01.2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO.846/2011 ON THE FILE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. - EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 31.10.2011 RENDERED IN OP(CAT) NO.3438 OF 2011. - EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.02.2012 RENDERED IN OA. NO.846 OF 2011 BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ## **Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(CAT)No. 1700 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6[th] day of June, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.** Heard the learned Senior counsel Smt.Sumathi Dandapani appearing for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2012 in O.A. No.846 of 2011. The respondent applicants, in response to a notification dated 30.01.2010 issued by the petitioners’ Board, had applied for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. It is not in dispute that the minimum qualification prescribed for the post was matriculation or its equivalent or 10+2 system and also a course completed Act Apprentices or ITI in any one of the trades mentioned therein or diploma in Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics/Automobile Engineering recognised by AICTE in lieu of ITI. 3. It is also not in dispute that applicants were diploma holders in Applied Electronics and were asked to participate in the written test. Being successful in the written OP(CAT) No.1700 of 2012 -:2:- examination, they were provisionally short listed for appointment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot and they were informed even their final selection by the petitioners. Subsequently, appointment letters were issued to the respondent applicants calling upon them to produce the original certificates for verification and also to undergo required medical test. After accepting the offer of appointment, the respondents reported before the 2[nd] petitioner and they were successful in the medical examination. When they reported for joining as directed by the petitioners, they were not allowed to join duty saying, they cannot be sent for training on the ground that their qualification of diploma in 'Applied Electronics' could not be treated as equivalent to diploma in 'Electronics' without canceling their appointment. At that relevant point of time the respondent applicants approached CAT, Ernakulam. 4. The contention of the applicants before CAT was, diploma in Applied Electronics is treated as equivalent to diploma in Electronics by Government of Kerala by Government Order dated 07.01.1994 and another letter dated 22.03.2008 issued by OP(CAT) No.1700 of 2012 -:3:- the Senior Joint Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Government of Kerala. They also referred to the case of one Pratheesh who was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot in Salem Division based on the same diploma in Applied Electronics. However, this was all denied by the petitioners. 5. In the earlier litigation, original application came to be disposed of with a direction to the petitioners herein to take action in accordance with the procedure contemplated after due notice to the applicants. Subsequently, petitioners made their stand clear that as per the guidelines laid down by the Railway Recruitment Board(RRB for short), diploma in Applied Electronics cannot be treated as diploma in Electronics and therefore the very entertainment of the applications were incorrect for want of required technical qualification. 6. It is not in dispute that both the applicants were holders of diploma in Applied Electronics from a recognized institution in the State of Kerala and their degrees are also recognized by AICTE. It is not based on any mislead information of the respondent applicants, they came to be short listed. After OP(CAT) No.1700 of 2012 -:4:- taking into consideration the details mentioned in the application and also the Certificates indicating their educational qualification both basic qualification and technical qualification they were allowed to write their written test. It is not a case where the applicants claimed one thing and found to be something else in the certificates. They have never misleaded the Department by giving wrong information or wrong certificates. Right from the beginning their claim was they are holders of diploma in Applied Electronics and it is equivalent to diploma in Electronics. The actual issue would be whether there is vast difference in the subjects that have to be completed by a candidate studying diploma in Electronics and diploma in Applied Electronics. 7. The applicants also relied upon the report of the Institute of Human Resources Development an autonomous educational institution established by the Government of Kerala which manages altogether 93 institutions including 9 Engineering Colleges apart from 8 Polytechnics and 39 Colleges of Applied Sciences. This institute opines, the diploma in Applied Electronics is equivalent to diploma in Electronics. We need not refer to OP(CAT) No.1700 of 2012 -:5:- other discussion of CAT with regard to the percentage of unemployment problem in the State of Kerala etc. What we have to consider is whether the respondent applicants would be unsuitable to hold the post they had applied for on account of being diploma holders in Applied Electronics. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that AICTE has not recognized diploma in Applied Electronics. They also admit that the Human Resources Development an autonomous educational institution established by the Government of Kerala manages several technical educational institutions. Even otherwise, when we look at the notification the specific trades referred to in the notification dated 30.01.2010 indicates diploma in several trades like Mechanic Radio and T.V.; Wireman, Tractor Mechanic etc. When these trade certificates issued by ITI completed apprentice or ITI is suitable to hold the post of Assistant Loco Pilot we are unable to understand how diploma in Applied Electronics not having one single subject i.e. Electrical Technology would disqualifies the candidate to hold the post of Assistant Loco Pilot. In other words, when Mechanical trade certificate holder can do the job of OP(CAT) No.1700 of 2012 -:6:- an Assistant Loco Pilot, we are at loss to understand how a diploma holder in Applied Electronics would be disqualified. Except Electrical Technology, all other subjects of study in all other semesters of diploma in Applied Electronics are one and the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion, CAT was justified in giving relief to the applicants in the O.A. 8. We also find another aspect, i.e., diploma in Electronics is more theoretical than diploma in Applied Electronics. At the most the theoretical knowledge of Electrical Technology alone is missing in the course studied by the respondent applicants. It is also noticed that a training would also be offered to the respondent applicants before they actually start working as Assistant Loco Pilot. This training definitely would include the required knowledge both theoretical and practical. 9. The case reported in **All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others** [(2009) 11 SCC 726] was referred to by the learned Senior counsel. This was with regard to a decision to permit bridge course for diploma-holders to acquire degree in Engineering or to OP(CAT) No.1700 of 2012 -:7:- ## permit 10+1(instead of 10+2) candidates to take bridge course. In that context their Lordships held as under: “This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like the Al India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). This function cannot be taken over or discharged by the courts. The courts are neither equipped nor have academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. if it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If however any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in.” OP(CAT) No.1700 of 2012 -:8:- 10. We are of the opinion, the Apex Court was considering altogether a different situation than the present situation. Even otherwise neither the Tribunal nor us are expressing or giving any opinion with regard to the required qualification of the respondents. We are only opining that the autonomous body’s information deserves to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned Senior counsel does not apply to the facts of the present case. With these observations we hold that the petition deserves to be rejected and accordingly rejected. **Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice.** **A.M. Shaffique, Judge.** ttb/07/06 OP(CAT) No.1700 of 2012 -:9:-