Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 251 (GAU)

NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY v. ENAMONI SAIKIA

2018-02-09

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel representing the petitioners as well as Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the respondent. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No.240/2014. 3. Sole issue for determination is whether the respondent fulfils the eligibility criteria with regard to the educational qualifications as prescribed in the Employment Notice dated 13.10.2012 whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Health & Malaria Inspector, amongst others, under the Ministry of Railways. 4. The educational qualification, as prescribed, was "B.Sc. Chemistry plus (a) 1 year Diploma in Health/Sanitary Inspector (OR) (b) 1 year National Trade Certificate (NTC) in Health/Sanitary Inspector, awarded by National Council for Vocational Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India, New Delhi". Under the General Instructions thereof it was indicated that verification of eligibility conditions with reference to original documents will be conducted only after candidates have qualified in all the stages of examination. It was also indicated that before applying for any post, the candidate should ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility norms. They should have the requisite educational/technical qualifications from recognized University/Institute as on the closing date of submission of the application. It was also made clear that applications of candidates may suffer rejection at any stage of recruitment process in case the candidate is not fulfilling the requisite criteria and, even if appointed, such candidate would be liable to be removed from service summarily. 5. In February, 2013 the written examination was held, result of the selection was declared one year later and document verification was done in March, 2014. At a time when it came to the knowledge of the Railway authorities that the respondent did not obtain the required diploma from an Institute, either recognized by the Government of India or by the Railway Board, a letter was issued to the respondent to submit documents to support that the institute from where he obtained the diploma is a recognized Institute. Incidentally, the respondent had obtained the diploma from the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi. On 18.03.2014 a clarificatory Circular was issued by the Railway Board in respect of the educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Health & Malaria Inspector. Incidentally, the respondent had obtained the diploma from the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi. On 18.03.2014 a clarificatory Circular was issued by the Railway Board in respect of the educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Health & Malaria Inspector. It was clarified that diploma obtained from the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi cannot be accepted in lieu of the prescribed qualification. Consequent thereto, in the provisional panel notified on 31.03.2014, the name of the respondent was excluded. This led to the institution of OA No.240/2014 before the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal allowed the Application vide order dated 23.09.2016. The Tribunal found that the Circular dated 18.03.2014 was without force, in that, Advertisement for the post was made in October, 2012 and the last date for submitting application was upto 17.30 hrs. of 12.11.2012. Further, one Punam Das, who also had obtained diploma from the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi got appointment as Health & Malaria Inspector on 13.10.2012. On these two short grounds, the Tribunal held that the rejection of the candidature of the respondent was not sustainable. Direction was, therefore, made to provisionally empanel the respondent, as done in the case of Punam Das, as per merit. 7. We respectfully disagree with the findings and decision of the Tribunal. The crux of the matter is whether the respondent possesses diploma from an institute which is recognized as per the terms of the Advertisement. Despite repeated opportunities, the counsel for the respondent could not furnish any documents whatsoever to substantiate that the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi is either recognized by the Central Government or by the Railway Board or, for that matter, by the Assam State Government/Bodies enacted by Act of Parliament or State Legislatures. This is an admitted position going to the root of the matter. 8. In the Advertisement itself it was clearly stipulated that candidates should have requisite qualifications from recognized University/Institute. The consequence of not fulfilling the requisite criteria was also clearly indicated. The fact that the respondent was without a diploma from a recognized Institute was known to the Railway authority only when it had conducted document verification as per the scheme of the selection. The consequence of not fulfilling the requisite criteria was also clearly indicated. The fact that the respondent was without a diploma from a recognized Institute was known to the Railway authority only when it had conducted document verification as per the scheme of the selection. The Circular dated 18.03.2014 clarifying on the issue as to the status of the Institute from where the respondent had obtained diploma was only by way of clarification, which is squarely applicable in the instant case. The said clarification will relate back to the original terms and conditions as given in the Employment Notice dated 13.10.2012. 9. As regards the other aspect of the matter where one Punam Das got appointment despite having obtained diploma from the same Institute as in the case of the respondent herein, it would be suffice to say that negative equality is an anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A wrong benefit conferred upon someone cannot be a ground to grant similar relief to others. 10. For all the reasons above, we hold that the respondent did not fulfill the eligibility criteria with regard to the requirement of educational qualification for appointment as Health & Malaria Inspector in terms of the Employment Notice dated 13.10.2012. We accordingly interfere and set aside the order of the Tribunal. As a necessary corollary, the present petition stands allowed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.