Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1142 (GAU)

UNION OF INDIA v. BIRENDRA PRASAD

2016-12-19

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel representing the petitioners. Having regard to the nature of the case, this petition is disposed of at the Motion stage itself. 2. Facts presented are that the Railway Authorities issued Employment Notice No. 1/2008 for filling up Group-‘D’ posts. The respondent No. 1 i.e. Sri Birendra Prasad offered his candidature and appeared in the selection process, comprising of Physical Efficiency Test Examination and written examination. As per the scheme of selection, documents verification was done after the written examination. In the said documents verification exercise, the respondent no. 1 was declared as not having qualified on ground that the educational certificate produced by him i.e. Madhayama Pass Certificate issued from Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, is not recognised by the Railway Board. The view so expressed was re-visited and the Railway authority issued letter dated 05.03.2014 informing the respondent no. 1 that his Certificate is now recognised by the Railway Board. Accordingly he was asked to appear in the fresh document verification exercise and also for medical examination on 29.03.2014. As no appointment letter was forthcoming despite having appeared in the fresh document verification exercise, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No. 040/00053 of 2015. Before the Tribunal the respondent no. 1 had urged that the issue with regard to the validity and the equivalent status of the Madhayama Examination with that of Matriculation/Secondary Examination was no longer res integra, in as much as the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench have held that a decree issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Board cannot be refused recognition by the Railway Board or Union of India. The judgment so rendered by the Patna Bench of the Tribunal found approval of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and also by the Apex Court in SLP No. CC9934/2009. In pursuance thereof the letter dated 08.10.2013 came to be issued under the hand of the Director, Estt.(N)-II, Railway Board, informing all the General Managers (P) of Zonal Railways/Production Units that the Certificates issued by Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna are to be treated as valid Certificates for employment in the Railways and also for pursuing higher status. 3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent no. 3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent no. 1 had also relied upon two other cases i.e. in OA No. 02/2013 and OA No. 040/00027/2015 wherein direction had been made for making appointment to the applicants therein to the vacant Group-‘D’ posts in accordance with merit. 4. Significantly, the counsel representing the Railways had acceded to the aforesaid position and had submitted before the Tribunal that similar direction may be given to the Railways to appoint the respondent no. 1 herein to the vacant Group-‘D’ posts in accordance with merit, if similarly placed, in terms of the earlier directions rendered in OA No. 02/2013 and OA No. 040/00027/2015. 5. On the aforesaid premises the application filed by the respondent no. 1 before the Tribunal was allowed with direction for making appointment in the vacant Group-‘D’ posts in accordance with merit within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal. 6. On perusal of the available records it appears that the embargo placed on Madhayama Pass Certificate issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna no longer exists. The embargo so placed also did not find legal sanction of the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Railway Authorities. Also, consequent upon the decision of the Courts on the validity of the Certificate issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, the Railway Authorities had also issued the letter dated 08.10.2013 certifying the validity of such Certificates for employment in the Railways and for pursuing higher status. 7. It also appears from the judgment of the Tribunal dated 16.02.2015 that the Railway authorities had expressed agreement to the effect that similar direction may be given to the respondent no. 1 in terms of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in two earlier Original Applications whereby the Railway Authorities were directed to make appointment to vacant Group-‘D’ posts in accordance with merit. 8. Having regard to the discussions above and the stand of the Railway Authorities before the Tribunal, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same stands accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.