Union Of India Through Chairman ... vs Shri Hukum Chand
2010 Latest Caselaw 914 Del

*                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              W.P. (C.) No.13991/2009

%                            Date of Decision: 17.02.2010

Union of India through                                .... Petitioner
Chairman RITES
                     Through Mr.V.S.R.Krishna, Advocate.

                                     Versus

Shri Hukum Chand                                             .... Respondent
          Through         Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                    YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                      NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in                  NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

* The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th August, 2009

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in T.A No.1046/2009 titled Sh. Hukam Chand v. Chairmen &

M.D., Rites Ltd and others allowing the petition of the respondent and

quashing the order dated 7th March, 2008 passed by the petitioners

declining to regularise the respondent as Deputy GM (Electrical) on the

ground that the degree issued to him by the Indian Navy is not a

recognised degree of Electrical Engineering and therefore, respondent

cannot be appointed to the regular post of Deputy GM though he was

appointed earlier as Deputy GM (electrical) on contractual basis on the

basis of same degree awarded by Indian Navy.

Brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the respondent

had retired as Chief Petty Officer from Indian Navy. Before retirement he

had served in the electrical branch of Indian Navy since 17th July, 1967

and had successfully completed the technical courses conducted in the

Naval Electrical Engineering Institute INS Valsura-Jamnagar (Gujarat).

The respondent also had 15 years of practical experience and therefore,

a degree equivalent to degree in electrical engineering was awarded to

him. He was held to be eligible for the post where technical qualification

of degree in Electrical Engineering is required or diploma in Electrical

Engineering with 5 years of experience in appropriate field is the

requirement. The degree was awarded by the Indian Navy in electric

engineering in the same manner as graduation degrees are awarded at

NDA and IMA courses in Defence.

After retirement pursuant to a public notice, the respondent

applied for the post of DGM (Electrical). The degree which was issued by

Indian Navy to the respondent was considered and accepted and he was

appointed to the post of DGM (Electrical). The appointment of the

respondent was, however, on contract.

Later on there had been revision of pay scale for the post of DGM

(electrical) with effect from 1st April, 2007. However revision of the pay

scale had been declined to the respondent on the ground that the

degree issued by Indian Navy was not recognised as a degree

equivalent to the Electrical Engineering.

The respondent had contended that as per the recruitment rules

of RITES manual he had applied pursuant to notification dated 28th

September, 2007 for regularisation as DGM (Electrical) and appeared

for the written examination and cleared the same. The respondent had

also appeared for interview, however, his result was not communicated

nor his salary was revised and, therefore, he filed an original application

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench. It was

asserted by the respondent that being a Scheduled Caste candidate and

having scored more than 50% marks under the relaxed standards and

as he had the requisite qualification of a degree in Electrical

Engineering, therefore, he was entitled to be regularised. The

respondent also contended that though he was awarded only 8 marks

in the interview, however, the criterion of minimum 50% marks in the

interview was not disclosed before the interview nor in the recruitment

rules and consequently on account of respondent scoring less than

minimum 50% marks in interview, his regularisation could not be

denied. The respondent relied on K.Manjusree v. State of A.P, (2008) 3

SCC 512.

The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions has

held that as per the old rules minimum 50% marks in the interview

could not be the criterion for regularisation as the same was not

provided under the old rules and the amended rules could not be given

retrospective effect. In K.Manjusree Vs State of A.P (supra) it was held

that after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination

and interview) is completed, then thereafter prescribing minimum

marks in interview, would amount to changing the rules of the game

after the game was played which will be clearly impermissible. The

Supreme Court had relied on P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India,

(1984) 2 SCC 141, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, (1985) 3

SCC 721 and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, (1987) 4 SCC 646

while holding so in K Manjusree (supra).

The learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the

decision of the Tribunal holding that on the basis of not scoring

minimum 50% marks in the interview, the selection of the respondent

for the regular post could be declined by the petitioners.

The Tribunal has also held that as per the certificate issued by

the Navy, which has been recognised by the Ministry of Defence and as

it has been treated as equivalent to a degree in Electrical Engineering

by the petitioner himself in the selection proceedings dated 15th

November, 2007 while appointing the respondent on contract basis,

therefore, the petitioner was estopped to contend that the qualification

of the respondent is not equivalent to a degree in Electrical Engineering.

In the circumstances, Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 7th

March, 2008 declining regularisation of the respondent as Deputy

General Manager (Electrical). This decision of the Tribunal is challenged

by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically contended

that in view of the circular No.6/2001 issued by UPSC Recruitment

(C&P) Section dated 26th April, 2001, the degree issued to the

respondent by the Indian Navy stipulating that this is a degree in

Electrical Engineering cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has emphatically contended that the degree issued to the

respondent in 1972 could not be accepted as a degree in Electrical

Engineering as its equivalence is not approved by All India Council for

Technical Education. The learned counsel has raised no other plea

except the equivalence of the degree issued to the respondent by the

Indian Navy being not equivalent to Electrical Engineering degree. The

degree issued to the respondent is as under:-

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that HUKUM CHAND Petty Officer Electrical Power (Chief Qualified) No.056426 T has been serving in the Electrical branch of the Indian Navy since 17th July, 1967. He has successfully completed the technical courses conducted in the Naval Electrical

Engineering Institute INS VALSURA-JAMNAGAR (Gujarat). He is having fifteen years of practical experience in the above trade. By virtue of above courses and experience in the Electrical Engineering he is eligible for the post where technical qualifications required are as follows:-

1. Degree in Electrical Engineering Or

2. Diploma in Electrical Engineer with 5 years, experience in the appropriate filed.

Vide Gazette of India Part II Section IV page 588 Ministry of Defence New Delhi-Saturday 11th November, 1972.

(C.S.Gayakawad) Sub Lt.

Electrical Officer Asstt.Controller Material Planning

Circular no.6/2001 was issued by the UPSC Recruitment (C&P)

Section regarding recruitment of 20 junior scientific officers

(Mechanical) and Aeronautical in the Directorate General of

Aeronautical Quality Assurance. The learned counsel is unable to

explain as to how this circular is applicable in case of the respondent.

Nothing has been produced to show that this circular was in respect of

petitioner or was adopted by the petitioner. Considering the circular

also it is apparent that it was only for those degrees which were issued

by the Indian Navy after 2001 on the basis of work experience only

without undergoing any technical courses in the Indian Air Force or

Indian Navy. The circular only stipulated that such degrees will not be

considered for appointment to selection posts. The circular No.6/2001

is as under:-

No.F.26/1/99-R (C&P) Union Public Service Commission Recruitment (C&P) Section

New Delhi, the 26th April, 2001

Circular No.6/2001

Subject: Recruitment of 20 Junior Scientific Officers (Mechanical/Aeronautical) in the Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance, M/o.Defence clarification regarding essential qualification.

Attention is invited to R(C&P) Section Circular No.18/2000 of even number dated 20th September, 2000 on the subject cited above. Now it has been clarified by the All India Council for Technical Education that no equivalence to the Engineering and Technical degrees in various disciplines of Engineering awarded by the Indian Navy/Air Force based on the length of service in the Defence Services is granted by them. Hence, in future such candidates possessing the certificate of equivalence to degrees in various disciplines of Engineering awarded by the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force may not be considered for selection posts."

The learned counsel for the petitioner cannot dispute that on the

basis of the degree issued to the respondent, he was appointed after

due selection to the post of DGM (Electrical) on contract basis. This is

not the case of the petitioner that the educational qualification for the

post of DGM (Electrical), on contract basis and for regular post are

different. The learned counsel cannot explain as to how the respondent

was appointed to the post of DGM (Electrical) on contract basis on the

basis of same degree. If the degree issued by Indian Navy on account of

respondent successfully completing technical courses in the Naval

Electrical Engineering Institute INS Valsura-Jamnagar (Gujarat) with

15 years of practical which is stated to be a degree in electrical

engineering, made the respondent eligible for the same post on contract

basis then how the respondent is not eligible for the same post on

regular basis.

The circular No.6/2001 which is dated 26th April, 2001 also

qualifies that after 2001 All India Council for Technical Education has

not been giving equivalence to the engineering and technical degrees

awarded by Indian Navy/Air Force based on length of service only in

defence service. The circular does not indicate that the equivalence

already considered or granted prior to 2001 had been withdrawn or

could be withdrawn. The circular also does not clarifies that the

equivalence is not to be given to those degrees which are issued after

successful completion of courses in the technical institutes of Indian

Navy. The respondent had been granted a degree in electrical

engineering not only on account of 15 years of practical experience or

length of service but the degree in electrical engineering was granted to

the respondent on successfully completing the technical courses

conducted in the Naval Electrical Engineering Institute INS Valsura-

Jamnagar (Gujarat).

This circular was not relied by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

No reason or the ground has been given by the petitioner for not relying

on the said circular before the Tribunal. Consequently the order of the

Tribunal cannot be allowed to the impugned by the petitioner on the

basis of the said circular. In any case even on the basis of said circular

it cannot be inferred that the degree issued to the respondent is not

equivalent to a degree of electrical engineering.

In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that the degree of

electrical engineering awarded to the respondent is not equivalent to the

degree in electrical engineering for his regularisation to the post of DGM

(Electrical) cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, this Court does

not find any such illegality or irregularity in the order of the tribunal

which shall require any interference by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

FEBRUARY 17, 2010                                   MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'