Telangana High Court
The Union Of India, Ministry Of Women And ... vs V.Natraja Sekhar on 10 April, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.42158 OF 2016
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 20.01.2016, passed in O.A.No.1249 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Ms. L. Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners and Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri A. Raghu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners had contended that respondent No.1 was working as Laboratory Assistant and he was seeking promotion to the post of Technical Assistant. Respondent No.1 has responded to a notification/circular, dated 05.09.2011, issued for filling up the post of Technical Assistant. The essential qualification for the said post is that one must possess Bachelor Degree of recognized University or equivalent qualification in Science with Chemistry or Biochemistry or Nutrition or Agriculture 2 AKS,J & RRN,J W.P.No.42158 of 2016 or Home Science or Chemical Engineering of Food Technology or Physiology as one of the subjects. As respondent No.1 was not having Bachelor's degree, his case was not considered by the petitioners. When the case of respondent No.1 was not considered, respondent No.1 sought for information under the Right to Information Act on 22.02.2012 and the petitioners had informed respondent No.1 on 01.03.2012 that he was not selected to the said post as he was not having the requisite qualification prescribed in the recruitment Rules or notification/circular, dated 05.09.2011. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.1249 of 2012 and the Tribunal vide impugned order, dated 20.01.2016, was pleased to allow the subject O.A. and directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant by treating him as a Graduate in Science, pursuant to the notification, dated 05.09.2011, issued by the petitioners and the interview conducted by the Screening Committee on 03.11.2011 and that the petitioners shall comply with the order within a period of two months from the date receipt of the copy of the order, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.
3 AKS,J & RRN,J W.P.No.42158 of 2016
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners had further contended that the Tribunal has allowed the subject O.A. by relying on the Circular, dated 26.05.1977, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Department of Education Technical, New Delhi, wherein it was decided that Diploma in Engineering in appropriate discipline plus ten years of technical experience in appropriate field can be recognized as equivalent to Degree in Engineering. But, the said Circular, dated 26.05.1977, is not applicable to the petitioners' Department and the said Circular is applicable only for Engineering graduates, but not for Technical Assistants. Further, the said Circular was filed along with the rejoinder to the reply.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners had further contended that the Tribunal has relied upon the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5203 of 2010, dated 23.01.2012, wherein, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has relied upon the said Circular, dated 26.05.1977, and came to a conclusion that Diploma holders on completion of ten years of technical experience are entitled to be treated as equivalent to degree holders. Leaned Senior Standing Counsel further contended that when the recruitment 4 AKS,J & RRN,J W.P.No.42158 of 2016 Rules and notification categorically state that one must have degree as essential qualification, the question of treating respondent No.1 as a graduate and considering his case for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant would not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order, dated 20.01.2016, passed by the Tribunal and allow the Writ Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 had contended that nowhere in the Writ Petition the petitioners have contended that the Circular, dated 26.05.1977, is not applicable to the petitioners' department and the said Circular is applicable only to Engineering graduates. Admittedly, one of the qualifications prescribed for the post of Technical Assistant is Chemical Engineering of Food Technology. As admittedly, respondent No.1 is having Diploma in Food Technology and is having more than 12 years of experience, in terms of the Circular, dated 26.05.1977, the qualification of Diploma, on completion of 12 years of technical experience, must be treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering. Learned counsel further contended that the said Circular was also followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5203 of 2010, dated 23.01.2012, and a principal Bench of the Tribunal has also 5 AKS,J & RRN,J W.P.No.42158 of 2016 taken a similar view, which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C).No.4879 of 2014. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of respondent No.1. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, is of the considered view that the Tribunal was pleased to allow the subject O.A. by following the Circular, dated 26.05.1977. Neither in the writ affidavit nor in the grounds, the petitioners had stated that the said Circular is not applicable to the petitioners' department. Further, the Tribunal has merely directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant by treating him as a graduate. Therefore, it is always open for the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, if respondent No.1 is otherwise eligible as per the Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of respondent No.1 and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 20.01.2016.
6 AKS,J & RRN,J W.P.No.42158 of 2016
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI _________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date: 10.04.2024 Tssb/MD