JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, C.J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (for short the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 375 of 2001. On the same day the Tribunal passed another order in Original Application No. 450 of 2001 following the earlier order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the second order also. The petitioner, that is, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short ICAR) issued 3 (three) advertisements in April, 2001 for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist. The first advertisement was for Senior Scientist (Biotechnology), Hyderabad; the second advertisement was for Senior Scientist (Animal Genetics & Breeding), Bikaner and the third advertisement was for Senior Scientist (Animal Genetics and Breeding), Izatnagar. 2. The essential qualifications for all these posts were as follows: QUALIFICATIONS: (a) ESSENTIAL: (i) Doctoral degree in Animal Breeding. (ii) 5 (five) years experience (excluding the period spent in obtaining the Ph.D degree, during service, subject to maximum of 3 years) in research/teaching/extension education as a Scientist (Rs. 8,000-13,500) or in an equivalent position in the relevant subject. (iii) Evidence of contribution to Research/Teaching/Extension Education as supported by published work/innovations. (iv) Specialization and experience in livestock production. 3. In response to the advertisements, the respondent submitted his application. In the application, the respondent stated that he had the requisite qualification for appointment and gave details of his experience as follows: 10. Details of Experience: 4. The ICAR did not respond to the application of the respondent. The respondent therefore made inquiries some time in July, 2001 when he was told that since he did not meet the experience criteria, his application was not considered. 5. In view of the non-consideration of his application, the respondent approached the Central Avian Research Institute (his employer) for an experience certificate. The certificate dated 21.8.2001 issued to the respondent by the Central Avian Research Institute is as follows: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Dr. S. Malik has served at this Institute on the post of Research Associate in projects as per details given below: 1. Ad hoc Research Project entitled "Genetic Characterization of Indigenous Poultry Germ Plasm" in the pay scale of ` 3,300-100-3800 + H.R.A. w.e.f. 30.5.1995 to 11.3.1997 revised w.e.f. 28.3.1996 in the pay scale of 3,750-125-4,375 + H.R.A. 2. S. Malik has served at this Institute on the post of Research Associate in projects as per details given below: 1. Ad hoc Research Project entitled "Genetic Characterization of Indigenous Poultry Germ Plasm" in the pay scale of ` 3,300-100-3800 + H.R.A. w.e.f. 30.5.1995 to 11.3.1997 revised w.e.f. 28.3.1996 in the pay scale of 3,750-125-4,375 + H.R.A. 2. Research Project entitled "Development and Breeding of Synthetic Broiler Strain" in the pay scale of ` 3,750-125-4,375 + H.R.A. w.e.f. 12.3.1997 to 1.2.1999 with two advance increments i.e., ` 4,000/- per month revised w.e.f. 1.4.1998 ` 10,500 + H.R.A. (consolidated). During the above periods his work and conduct have been found excellent. 6. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the Central Avian Research Institute is a unit of the ICAR and the contents of the certificate are not in dispute. 7. From a perusal of the aforesaid certificate, it is clear that the respondent worked on the post of Research Associate, which carried a pay scale of ` 3,300-3,800 plus H.R.A. with effect from 30.5.1995 to 11.3.1997. The pay was subsequently revised with effect from 28.3.1996 to ` 3,750-4,375 plus H.R.A. The respondent also worked as a Research Associate in another Research Project for the period from 12.3.1997 to 1.2.1999. In the second research project, the respondent was in the pay scale of ` 3,750-4,375 plus H.R.A. along with two advance increments. The pay of the respondent was revised from 1.4.1998 to ` 10,500/- (consolidated) plus H.R.A. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent worked on the post of Research Associate for period of almost 4 (four) years and that he was drawing a salary of ` 10,500/-. As such, even though he may not have worked as a Scientist in the pay scale of ` 8,000-13,500/- he certainly worked in an equivalent position. 9. On the basis of the experience certificate dated 21.8.2001 issued by the Central Avian Research Institute, the respondent approached the Tribunal contending that he had the requisite essential qualification for selection to the post of Senior Scientist. 10. 9. On the basis of the experience certificate dated 21.8.2001 issued by the Central Avian Research Institute, the respondent approached the Tribunal contending that he had the requisite essential qualification for selection to the post of Senior Scientist. 10. The Tribunal entertained the application of the respondent and by the impugned orders aforesaid it was held that the respondent had worked in the post of Research Associate for about 4 (four) years and thereafter as an Assistant Professor and thus completed the 5 (five) years experience required in terms of the three advertisements issued by the ICAR. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the ICAR has preferred these two writ petitions. Both the writ petitions were earlier taken up for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court on 6.9.2002 and dismissed. The ICAR then approached the Supreme Court and by an order dated 26.11.2009, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be heard afresh since no reasons were given for the dismissal order. That is how the matter is now before us. 12. The issue raised by the ICAR is that the respondent was ineligible because he did not at all hold the post of Scientist in the pay scale of ` 8,000-13,500/-. Unfortunately what has been overlooked by the ICAR is that the respondent held an equivalent position and by virtue of holding an equivalent position, the respondent was eligible for being considered for selection against all the three advertisements. 13. To show equivalence between the post of Scientist and Research Associate, the respondent has filed before us a statement, which has not been controverted by the ICAR, and as per that statement, the post of Scientist and Research Associate are comparable. The statement is as follows: 14. A perusal of the aforesaid statement shows that in terms of the report of the 5th Pay Commission a Research Associate getting a salary of ` 10,500/- (as in the case of the respondent) is equivalent to a Scientist in the pay scale of ` 8,000-13,500/-. The aforesaid chart also shows that under the 4th Pay Commission report a Research Associate in the pay scale of ` 3,300-3,800/- and ` 3,750-4,375/- is equivalent to Scientist in the pay scale of ` 2,200-4,000/-. The pay scale of a Scientist of ` 2,200-4,000/- was revised to ` 8,000-13,500/- in the 5th Pay Commission. The aforesaid chart also shows that under the 4th Pay Commission report a Research Associate in the pay scale of ` 3,300-3,800/- and ` 3,750-4,375/- is equivalent to Scientist in the pay scale of ` 2,200-4,000/-. The pay scale of a Scientist of ` 2,200-4,000/- was revised to ` 8,000-13,500/- in the 5th Pay Commission. Similarly, the pay scale of Research Associate was revised from ` 3,300-3,800/3,750-4,375/- to ` 10,500/- in the 5th Pay Commission report. It is therefore quite clear that at all stages a Research Associate holds a position equivalent to a Scientist, although the pay scale may be different. 15. Under the circumstances, the ICAR is incorrect in contending that the respondent was ineligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist. The respondent held a position equivalent to that of a Scientist in the pay scale of ` 8,000-13,500/- and was, therefore/entitled to be considered for appointment as a Senior Scientist. 16. We do not find any error in the view been taken by the Tribunal. There is no merit in both the writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.