The Union Of India And Ors vs Suresh Chand Meena
2023 Latest Caselaw 2454 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9767 of 2017

     ======================================================

1. The Union of India through the General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur.

2. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. The Executive Director/E (RRB), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

4. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Patna, Bihar.

5. The Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Patna, Bihar.

6. The Assistant Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

Suresh Chand Meena, Son of Smt. Kamla Devi Meena, resident of Bonil, The Binil, District Sawal Madhopur, Rajasthan.

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, (CGC) For the Respondent/s : Mr. M.P. Dixit, Advocate Mr. S.K. Dixit, Advocate Mr. S.K. Chaubey, Advocate Mrs. Swastika, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA)

Date : 17-05-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the

petitioners for the following reliefs :-

Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

"a. For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari and order/orders, direction/directions to set aside the order dated 04.05.2017 passed in O.A. No. 610/2015 by a Division Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred as "Tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners/respondent to declare the result of respondent/applicant effective from the original date of final result of 19.03.2014, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further directed that the respondent/applicant shall be given seniority from the due date as per his position in the merit list and have also passed strictures against the petitioners and directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent/applicant.

b. For any other appropriate order/orders of this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. Briefly stated the facts, according to the

petitioners, are that the respondent applied for the post of

Assistant Loco Pilot, Category No.1 under Centralised

Employment Notice (CEN) 01/2011 published on 13.08.2011 by

Railway Recruitment Board, Patna, Ministry of Railway,

Government of India. After scrutiny, admit card was issued to

the respondent for the written examination. The respondent Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

appeared in the written examination on 15.07.2012 and

subsequently in Aptitude Test, conducted on 26.07.2013. On

being found provisionally eligible, the respondent was called for

verification of original certificate as well as identity on

25.02.2014. Thereafter, at the time of verification of

documents, the respondent produced certificate of Praveshika as

equivalent to Matric and a certificate for Varishtha Upadhyaya

Examination as equivalent to Intermediate, both were issued

from Madhyamik Shiksha Board, Rajasthan. The petitioners

sought a clarification from the Railway Board as to whether the

said certificate was recognised by the Railway for appointment

in the relevant year or not. The reply of the Railway Board was

not received. However, the final result of the respondent was

kept in abeyance awaiting the reply of the Railway Board.

Being aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A. No.610 of 2015

before the learned CAT, Patna, which was allowed vide order

dated 04.05.2017. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

CAT dated 04.05.2017, the petitioners filed the present Writ.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the learned CAT has committed grave error by passing the order

dated 04.05.2017 whereby the RRB was directed to declare the

result of the respondent, without confirming/verifying whether Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

his qualification was equivalent to Matric. The learned counsel

further submitted that all along, from appearing in the written

examination, subsequently in aptitude test to the verification of

the original certificates, the candidates remain only

provisionally eligible and subject to fulfilling all the eligibility

criteria in all respect. This fact is brought into the notice of all

the candidates through call letter for aptitude test and also

through intimation letter for verification of the original

certificates. Merely appearing / qualifying at written

examination does not give any right or entitlement to get

selection or appointment in the examination concerned. The

eligibility and validity of the candidates are thoroughly checked

at the time of verification of certificates and before issuance of

panel of selected candidates by the RRB, subject to qualifying

the medical test conducted by the concerning Zone/Division. If

any type of irregularity is detected in the original forms, admit

cards, declaration /certificates of the candidate, their candidature

is required to be cancelled / rejected, even after selection/

empanelment issued by the competent/ appointing authority.

Apart from this even after appointment, their services could be

terminated whenever the facts of the irregularities come to the

notice of the competent authority.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further

submitted that in this case also, reference has been made

regarding recognition of certificate to the Railway Board.

Hence, the result of the respondent has been kept in abeyance

awaiting the clarification/instruction of the Railway Board. The

learned counsel further submitted that Railway Recruitment

Board, Patna had approached Railway Board for

clarification/advise on the issue that whether the candidate's

qualification (Praveshika Examination & Varishtha Upadhyaya

Examination) is admissible for the purpose of appointment in

service under Government of India in the Ministry of Railways

or not. As per Railway Board's clarification, Railway

Recruitment Board, Patna approached to Council of Boards of

School Education in India (COBSE) which also did not clarify

the matter and instead referred the matter to Secretary, Board of

Secondary Education, Rajasthan. Secretary, Board of Secondary

Education, Rajashthan which took its own time to reply in the

matter i.e. whether certificate of Praveshika Examination was

equivalent to the certificate of Secondary School Examination

issued from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan in the

year 2004 and admissible for appointment under Government of

India. The learned counsel further submitted that the Railway Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

Recruitment Board, Patna made so many efforts to obtain

clarification on the basic essential qualification of the

respondent, but it could not receive any information with regard

to the certificate of Praveshika being equivalent to the matric

and in these circumstances final decision could not be taken in

absence of required clarification on the issue of recognition of

the certificate submitted by the petitioner. The learned counsel

further submitted that the learned CAT relied on the

circulars/instructions issued by the Railway Board dated

15.07.2014 under RBE No.75/2014 and dated 26.03.2015 under

RBE No.29/2015 for checking the equivalence of the degree of

the respondent with reference to COBSE, but the aforesaid

circulars/instructions were withdrawn by the Railway Board

vide RBE No.114/2017 dated 31.08.2017 since it has been

found that Council of Boards of School Education in India

(COBSE) is a private organization and its membership is

voluntary and COBSE has not been established by the Ministry

of Human Resource Development. Moreover, the membership

of COBSE does not automatically grant the status of recognized

Board upon any member Board. By the said circular, the

Railway Board has instructed that for genuineness of various

School Boards, State Governments concerned may be Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

approached on whose authority the School Boards claim their

genuineness. The learned counsel further submitted that the

RRB moved in this matter by way of abundant caution and

firstly inquired from the Railway Board and thereafter from

COBSE and COBSE referred the matter to the Government of

Rajasthan and vide letter dated 27.02.2020 issued by the

Assistant Director, Sanskrit Siksha Rajasthan, Jaipur, it has been

confirmed by the Rajasthan Board that Praveshika Pariksha

(with English) is equivalent to Secondary School Examination

which is valid for Govt. job. After receiving the confirmation

from the Rajasthan Board, the final result of the respondent has

been published on 31.08.2020 by the petitioners. The respondent

has been offered appointment and he has joined the service. In

the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel prayed that the

cost of Rs.10,000/-imposed by the learned Tribunal, Patna

Bench may be waived off and this writ petition may be disposed

of.

6. The learned counsel for the sole respondent while

justifying the order of learned CAT submitted that despite the

availability of all the information on the site of COBSE, the

railway authorities have been making futile correspondence

causing unnecessary delay in finalizing the appointment of the Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

respondent adversely affecting his career. The learned counsel

further submitted that in RBE No.29/2015 dated 26.03.2015, the

Railway Board has already circulated the decision that the

certificate/qualification obtained from the institution figuring in

the list of associate members on official website of COBSE may

also be treated at par with those borne on list of Member Board

and certificates/ qualification obtained from all such institutions

will be acceptable for the purpose of employment on the

railways from the date on which the said institution has been

accorded membership by COBSE. The learned counsel further

submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the

Railway Board, the RRB, Patna ought to have verified

themselves, from the official website of the COBSE, about the

certificate of the respondent, but instead of complying with the

decision of Railway Board, they have made unnecessary

correspondence causing inordinate delay in finalizing the result

of the respondent. The learned counsel also submitted that the

learned CAT after considering all facts and circumstances has

allowed the O.A. No.610 of 2015 vide order dated 04.05.2017.

However, the respondent did not controvert the contention

raised in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners on

15.08.2021 whereby later development have been brought on Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

record.

7. Having considered the material available on record

and further considering the submissions of the parties, it appears

that the final result of the respondent has been published on

31.08.2020 and the respondent has been provisionally selected

for the post of Assistant I Pilot, Category No.01 and his name

has been recommended to the office of Principal Chief

Personnel Officer/East Central Railway/Hajipur. Now, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners prayed that a

cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the learned CAT, Patna Bench

may be waived off and this writ petition may be disposed of.

8. From the records, it appears that a supplementary

affidavit dated 15.08.2021 has been filed on behalf of the

petitioners wherein in paragraph nos. 6 to 9 it has been stated as

under :-

"6. That it is humbly submitted that the Railway Recruitment Board, Patna vide its Letter No. RRB/PAT/Conf./01/2011/Tech.

Policy dated 20.08.2018, 10.10.2018, 17.06.2019, 10.10.2019 approached to Secretary/School Education and Bhasha, Government of Rajasthan for clarification that whether certificate issued to the respondent/applicant by the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan under Praveshika Examination - 2004 is Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

equivalent to Matriculation or not. It is pertinent to mention here that recognition of the of institution/Board (Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan) is not being questioned. What remains to be ascertained by RRB/Patna is whether certificate of Praveshika Examination is/was equivalent to the certificate of Secondary School Examination issued from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan in the year 2004 and admissible for appointment under Govt. of India.

7. That vide letter No. ननशं शी/शै क- 2/P.94/समककता / 8701, नदनांक 27.02.2020 issued by Astt. Director, Sanskrit Siksha Rajasthan, Jaipur, it has been confirmed by the Rajasthan Board, that Preveshika Pariksha (With English) to equivalent to Secondary School Examination which is valid for Govt. Job.

8. That after receiving the confirmation from the Rajasthan Board, the final result of the respondent/applicant has been published on 31.08.2020 by the petitioner.

9. That in the facts and circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed that a cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the learned Tribunal, Patna Bench may please be waived off and this writ petition may please be disposed of in the light of above."

Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

9. Since the fact came to be established that the degree

of Praveshika held by the respondent is equivalent to Secondary

Degree of any recognized Board and the same has been taken

into consideration and the respondent was offered appointment,

the order of RRB cannot be faulted if it directed for appointment

of the respondent. But so far as recording strong stricture

against the RRB and imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- are

concerned, we are unable to agree with this direction of the

learned CAT. If there was even an iota of doubt, the RRB was

well within its right to ascertain about the genuineness and

equivalence of the certificate of the respondent since there

appears some ambiguity on this point. Submission of the

petitioners as already discussed in para 5 on this point deserves

consideration and is quite relevant for this purpose. The conduct

of the RRB in moving cautiously in the matter cannot be faulted

and it is also a fact as soon as it came to the knowledge of the

RRB that the certificate of the respondent was equivalent to

Secondary School certificate, it published the final result of the

respondent and consequent thereof the respondent was

appointed.

10. In the light of discussions made here-in-above, we

are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.9767 of 2017 dt.17-05-2023

04.05.2017 passed by learned CAT in O.A. No.610 of 2015.

11. However, having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to expunge the

stricture and waive the cost of Rs.10,000/- as imposed by the

learned CAT on the petitioners in its impugned order.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

( Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                09.05.2023
Uploading Date          17.05.2023
Transmission Date       NA