Delhi High Court
Ramesh Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India And Ors. on 28 February, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No. 18413/2006
% February 28, 2013
RAMESH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocate.
versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Kuldeep S.
Parihar, Advocate and Mr. H.S.
Parihar, Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Ms. Pragya Verma, Standing counsel
for respondent No.3/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming a direction
against the respondent No.1/employer/Reserve Bank of India to permit the
petitioner for appearing in the examination for Research Officers. The
petitioner is presently working as a Coin-Note Examiner.
2. It is undisputed that the qualifications which are required for
appearing for the post of Research Officer are as under:-
"(b) Educational Qualification (as on 01/02/2003):
Essential: (i) Master's Degree in Statistics/Mathematical
Statistics/Mathematical Economics/ Econometrics with a minimum of
55% marks or an equivalent grade OR (ii) A Master's Degree in
Mathematics with a minimum of 55% marks or an equivalent grade
and one year Post-graduate Diploma in Statistics or related subjects
from an institute of repute OR (iii) M. Stat. Degree of Indian
Statistical Institute with a minimum of 55% marks."
3. On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner has got a Master's degree in Mathematical Statistics and therefore
the petitioner was entitled to appear for the examination of Research Officer.
4. When asked to show the degree of the University whereby the
petitioner has got the Master's degree in Mathematical Statistics, learned
counsel for the petitioner could not point out on record a Master's degree in
Mathematical Statistics. What is only pointed out to me is mark sheet of the
petitioner who appeared as a M.Sc. Mathematics student with one subject as
Statistics. Surely, appearing in M.Sc. Mathematics with a subject in
Statistics is much different than having a Master's degree in Mathematical
Statistics. Also, the qualification in question specifically provides for a
different category qua a Master's degree in Mathematics and with respect to
such qualification a person can only be considered for appearing in the
examination of Research Officer when such person additionally has one year
Post-graduate Diploma in Statistics. Admittedly, nothing has been filed on
record nor pleaded that petitioner has any Post-graduate Diploma in
Statistics.
5. Counsel for the petitioner then finally contended that petitioner
is entitled to appear for examination because one Mr. M.V. Bhaskaran who
only had a Master's degree in Mathematics has been allowed to appear in
examination of Research Officers, and if the petitioner is not allowed to
appear this will tantamount to discrimination against the petitioner because
Mr. M.V. Bhaskaran also had only a Master's degree in Mathematics like
the petitioner.
6. The contention, in this regard, of the counsel for the petitioner
is misconceived because when we refer to the appointment of Mr. M.V.
Bhaskaran as a Research Officer it shows that the appointment is of the year
1984 and the petitioner is seeking appointment as a Research Officer for the
advertisement which has been given in the year 2006. There is nothing in
the record of this writ petition as to what were the qualifications for
appearing in the examination of Research Officers in the year 1984 when
Mr. M.V. Bhaskaran was appointed. When asked to point out at least an
averment in the writ petition that at the relevant time in the year 1984 the
recruitment rules were same as existing in the year 2006 for a Research
Officer, counsel for the petitioner could not point out even to one averment,
leave aside the issue of filing of documents showing qualification for being
appointed as a Research Officer in the year 1984.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which is
accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 28, 2013
Ne
