Madras High Court
Deputy General Manager vs S.Sujitha on 21 September, 2022
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU0
Rev. Appln.(Writ)No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
and W.M.P.No.8659 & 8661 of 2022
1.Deputy General Manager,
(Human Resource-Recruitment),
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,
Recruitment Section,
Tellbhawan, Dehradun,
State of Uttarkhand.
2.Deputy General Manager
(Human Resource-Employer Relations),
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,
CMDA Building, Tower No.1,
Thalla Muthu Nadarajan Building,
Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008. ... Review Petitioners
Vs.
1.S.Sujitha
2.Director, Centre for Academic Courses,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025. …Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 114
C.P.C., to review the Order in W.P.No.No.5923 of 2013 dated 16.10.2019 and
dismiss the Writ Petition.
For Review Petitioners : Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi
for M/s.Giridhar & Sai
For Respondents : Mr.G.Gokul for R1
for Mr.AR.Balaji
R2 – No appearance
ORDER
The Review application has been filed seeking to review the order made by
this Court in the instant Writ Petition.
2.Heard Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi, learned counsel for the review petitioners and
Mr.G.Gokul learned counsel for the first respondent.
3.Learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that this Court
while passing the order under review has not considered the wilful suppression of the
educational qualification of the first respondent. The Court had failed to see that the
recruitment notification issued in the year 2012 was based on the regulations of
O.N.G.C. of the year 1980 as amended on 14.03.1997 and subsequent notification
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
which was relied upon by the Court of the year 2014 was made pursuant to the
amendment that has been made to the regulation in the year 2014. Therefore,
according to the review petitioners, there was an error apparent on the face of the
records as the order in the said Writ Petition is not based on the regulations that was
prevailing at that point of time.
4.Countering his arguments, learned counsel for the first respondent would
submit that the review itself is not maintainable as the review has been filed by a
different counsel than the one who had appeared when the order and the review was
passed. That apart, he also consistently pleaded that the orders has been passed after
obtaining the consent from the then counsel on record for the review petitioner. He
also pleaded that the second respondent herein has issued an equivalent certificate
certifying that the degree obtained by the first respondent viz., B.Tech in Information
Technology is equivalent to the degree in Computer Engineering which was one of
the qualification that has been prescribed.
5.When that being so, there is no reason to reject the candidature of the first
respondent and that she has fully been qualified and that she has also successfully
passed the written examination and therefore, her candidature should be considered.
He also further rebutted the contention of the review petitioners that even though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
advertisement of the year 2012 does not state the equivalent degree will be
considered, it is incumbent upon them to consider the equivalent degree as has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4846 of 2021 dated 17.08.2021
and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (17) SCC 709.
6.I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both
sides and perused the materials available on record.
7.The review petitioners is governed by regulations for recruitment and
promotion. When a recruitment notification was issued on 10.08.2012, the same has
been issued in conformity with the regulations of the year 1980. As per the said
regulation, the qualification for the post of a programmer has been stated as a first
class graduate degree in Computer Engineering or First Class Post Graduate in
Computer Application/Computer Science or “B” level Diploma as defined by the
Department of Electronics, Government of India. The recruitment notification
issued on 10.08.2012 also prescribes the same qualification in respect for
appointment to the post of Programmer. Further, reading of the said recruitment
notification in clause G i.e. general instructions, sub clause (f) provides that
candidature of the registered candidate is liable to be rejected at any stage of
recruitment process or after recruitment or joining, if any information provided by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
the candidate is found to be false or is not found in conformity with the eligibility
criteria mentioned in the advertisement.
8.It is an admitted fact that when the first respondent had made an online
registration, she has given her qualification as graduate degree in Computer
Engineering whereas the first respondent is holding B.Tech. degree in Information
Technology. Based on the online registration, the first respondent was also permitted
to write the written test and she being successful in the same was called for an
interview and for verification of the original records. Only during that time, it was
found that the first respondent was not holding a degree in Computer Engineering as
claimed by her in the registration but she was holding a degree in B.Tech in
Information Technology. Therefore, her candidature was not further considered,
since as per the recruitment regulation and the notification of the qualification was
only a degree holder with first class in Computer Engineering. However, after the
process, the first respondent seems to have applied to the Anna University where she
studied for issuance of equivalent certificate and the second respondent also seems to
have issued an equivalent certificate. Issuance of such equivalent certificate is
immaterial when the recruitment notification only prescribes the qualification of a
degree in Computer Engineering. Had the first respondent notified that even
equivalent degree could be considered only then, the issuance of such equivalent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
certificate could be taken note of. Therefore, the order of this Court holding that the
review petitioners erred in not considering the equivalent certificate, is to be
revisited.
9.In view of that I am of the opinion that when the recruitment notification
does not envisage consideration of any equivalent degree then the review petitioners
could not be directed to consider the equivalent certificate issued by the second
respondent in favour of the first respondent. Further, the decisions relied upon by
the learned counsel for the first respondent could not be applicable to the facts of this
case. Since in the case reported in 2015 (17) SCC 709, the appellants therein have
fulfilled the eligibility criteria as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the
other cases in Civil Appeal No.4846 of 2021, a note to the notification of
qualification in the said recruitment process, it was stated that certain Diploma
awarded would also be treated equivalent to the degree and in that context, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the appellants were entitled to be considered for
appointment. However, in this case, admittedly, the first respondent does not hold
the degree in Computer Engineering and is only holding a degree in B.Tech in
Information Technology.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
10.That apart, the degree in Information Technology was only by way of
subsequent amendment in the year 2014, was held to be a qualification for the post
of Programmer. The said notification has been made pursuant to the amendment in
the regulation. Therefore, such amendment could only be held to be prospective and
not retrospective and therefore, the order of this Court applying the prospective
amendment to the present case on hand is also error apparent on the face of the
records. For the said reasons, I am inclined to recall the order dated 16.10.2019 in
W.P.No.5923 of 2013. Further, on the facts of the case as stated supra.
11.It is also admitted when the first respondent made an online registration
showing her qualification as degree in Computer Engineering, had she bonafiedly
applied by showing a correct degree, she would not be allowed to make online
registration. The first respondent had also not challenged the recruitment
notification issued by the review petitioners. That apart, if she had challenged the
same and had been successful many persons like the first respondent would also get
an opportunity and therefore, she has to compete with them. By not challenging the
recruitment notification and having accepted the same and participated in the same,
the first respondent cannot be held to say that the degree in B.Tech Information
Technology is equivalent to degree in Computer Engineering. Had the review
petitioners in the said notification stated that the persons holding equivalent degree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
would also to be considered for the post, then, the first respondent would have legs
to stand. But, in this case, it is not so. Further, the recruitment notification of the
year 2012 is in conformity with the regulation of recruitment framed by O.N.G.C.
Therefore, the first respondent would not be eligibile to make application for the said
recruitment process.
12.In view of the aforesaid findings, I do not find any merits in the Writ
Petition and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. In view of the same, the order
dated 16.10.2019 in W.P.No.5923 of 2013 is recalled and the Review petition is
allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed, if any.
21.09.2022
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
pam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
To
The Director, Centre for Academic Courses,
Anna University,
Chennai – 600 025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev. Appln(Writ).No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
pam
Rev. Appln.(Writ)No.52 of 2022
in W.P.No.5923 of 2013
21.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
