Union Of India vs Atul Khare S/O Shri A.P. Khare ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 956 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000889]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 227/2021
1.       Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Government Of
         India, Ministry Of Railway, New Delhi 110001
2.       Railway Recruitment Board Ajmer, Through Its Secretary,
         2010, Nehru Marg, Near Ambedkar Circle, Ajmer (Raj)
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                        Versus
Atul Khare S/o Shri A.p. Khare, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
Of Hig-33, Ganga Enclave, Indrapurum, Shmashad Road, Agra
(Applicant Has Applied For The Post Of Assistant Loco Pilot In
The Recruitment Held By Rrb, Ajmer)
                                                                     ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ms. Sanju Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

30/01/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Assistant Loco

Pilot pursuant to the Centralized Employment Notice dated

18.01.2014. He participated in the selection process and was

declared successful vide result dated 27.05.2015. There was no

objection against his selection and his document verification was

also completed on 12.06.2015, but his name was not included in

the final panel prepared on 15.07.2015, probably on the ground

that he was not possessing the educational qualification in terms

of the advertisement.

3. The advertisement provided for the minimum basic

qualification as matriculation with certificate of apprenticeship or a

[2023/RJJP/000889] (2 of 4) [CW-227/2021]

degree or diploma in Mechanical and Automation Engineering from

an institute approved by the All India Council for Technical

Education (AICTE).

4. The petitioner filed Original Application No.291/00633/2015

before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) along with 54

other persons challenging the non-inclusion of his/their name(s) in

the panel. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 01.06.2016

and it was held that the petitioner possesses the requisite eligible

educational qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the post of

Assistant Loco Pilot as per the Centralized Employment Notice

No.01/2014 and the respondent-State authorities were directed to

consider him for selection after due verification of his

diploma/degree, if he is otherwise eligible.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment and order, the case of

the petitioner for selection/appointment was reconsidered, but the

empanelment was denied to him on the ground that the

diploma/degree of Mechanical and Automation Engineering

possessed by him is not from an institute recognized by the

AICTE.

6. The petitioner challenged the action of the State-respondents

again by means of fresh OA No.466/2017 alleging that the State-

respondents have not raised the issue of his ineligibility or that the

Amity University's Degree possessed by him is from an

unrecognized institute, and as such, once the Tribunal has held

the petitioner to be eligible, the State-respondents are estopped

from taking the said ground and rejecting the candidature of the

petitioner.

[2023/RJJP/000889] (3 of 4) [CW-227/2021]

7. The Tribunal has partly allowed the said OA by judgment and

order dated 09.10.2020 and the State-respondents have been

directed to empanel the petitioner as Assistant Loco Pilot in any of

the vacancies, which may still exists, or that may arise in future.

8. The Union of India and the Railways aggrieved by the

aforesaid judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 09.10.2020,

have preferred this writ petition contending that the petitioner

who is not qualified for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, cannot be

directed to be empanelled even if any vacancy exists.

9. The issue of eligibility of the petitioner as to whether he

possesses the minimum educational qualification prescribed as per

the Centralized Employment Notice No.01/2014, has been

considered by the Tribunal vide judgment & order dated

01.06.2016 and it has been categorically held that the petitioner

possesses the requisite qualifications, meaning thereby that the

petitioner possesses the qualification of Matriculation with

certificate of apprenticeship and a degree/diploma in Mechanical

and Automation Engineering from a recognised institute.

10. The aforesaid judgment and order is final and conclusive

and, therefore, at this juncture, it does not lie in the mouth of the

State-respondents to allege that the petitioner is not eligible. The

State-respondents were only required to verify the genuineness of

the diploma/degree possessed by the petitioner. It is not the case

of the State-respondents that the aforesaid diploma/degree

possessed by the petitioner is fake or is not genuine.

11. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal is perfectly justified

in holding that the State-respondents cannot raise such a plea at

this juncture.

[2023/RJJP/000889] (4 of 4) [CW-227/2021]

12. This apart, it has to be noted that the petitioner is having the

degree in Mechanical and Automation Engineering from the Amity

University. The said University is creation of a special enactment

i.e. The Amity University Rajasthan, Jaipur Act, 2008. In the case

of Bharathidasan University & Anr. Vs. All India Council for

Technical Education & Ors., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676,

the Apex Court has clearly ruled that there is a distinction

between universities and other technical institutions and the

universities are beyond the scope of recognition by the AICTE.

Since the petitioner has completed his graduation in the required

subject from a university and that the said university is outside

the ambit of recognition of the AICTE, the condition of having the

degree from an approved institute of AICTE, would not be

attracted.

13. It is only in the cases where the diplomas or degrees are

from any technical institute that the recognition by the AICTE

would have been mandatory.

14. Thus, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we

are of the opinion that as the petitioner possesses the requisite

qualifications for holding the post of Assistant Loco Pilot, he

cannot be denied empanelment merely for the reason that the

degree possessed by him is not from an institute approved by the

AICTE when he is having a degree from a statutory university,

which is outside the purview of recognition from the AICTE.

15. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and the

same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                   (SHUBHA MEHTA),J                                                     (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

                                   KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/31







Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)