Telangana High Court
The Union Of India, Ministry Of Women And ... vs V.Natraja Sekhar on 10 April, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.42158 OF 2016
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated
20.01.2016, passed in O.A.No.1249 of 2012 by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short,
'the Tribunal').
2. Heard Ms. L. Pranathi Reddy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for Central Government appearing for the petitioners and
Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri A. Raghu
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government
appearing for the petitioners had contended that respondent No.1
was working as Laboratory Assistant and he was seeking
promotion to the post of Technical Assistant. Respondent No.1 has
responded to a notification/circular, dated 05.09.2011, issued for
filling up the post of Technical Assistant. The essential
qualification for the said post is that one must possess Bachelor
Degree of recognized University or equivalent qualification in
Science with Chemistry or Biochemistry or Nutrition or Agriculture
2 AKS,J & RRN,J
or Home Science or Chemical Engineering of Food Technology or
Physiology as one of the subjects. As respondent No.1 was not
having Bachelor's degree, his case was not considered by the
petitioners. When the case of respondent No.1 was not
considered, respondent No.1 sought for information under the
Right to Information Act on 22.02.2012 and the petitioners had
informed respondent No.1 on 01.03.2012 that he was not selected
to the said post as he was not having the requisite qualification
prescribed in the recruitment Rules or notification/circular, dated
05.09.2011. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 approached
the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.1249 of 2012 and the
Tribunal vide impugned order, dated 20.01.2016, was pleased to
allow the subject O.A. and directed the petitioners to consider the
case of respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of Technical
Assistant by treating him as a Graduate in Science, pursuant to the
notification, dated 05.09.2011, issued by the petitioners and the
interview conducted by the Screening Committee on 03.11.2011
and that the petitioners shall comply with the order within a period
of two months from the date receipt of the copy of the order,
without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the
petitioners.
3 AKS,J & RRN,J
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government
appearing for the petitioners had further contended that the
Tribunal has allowed the subject O.A. by relying on the Circular,
dated 26.05.1977, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Education and Social Welfare, Department of Education Technical,
New Delhi, wherein it was decided that Diploma in Engineering in
appropriate discipline plus ten years of technical experience in
appropriate field can be recognized as equivalent to Degree in
Engineering. But, the said Circular, dated 26.05.1977, is not
applicable to the petitioners' Department and the said Circular is
applicable only for Engineering graduates, but not for Technical
Assistants. Further, the said Circular was filed along with the
rejoinder to the reply.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government
appearing for the petitioners had further contended that the
Tribunal has relied upon the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in C.W.P.No.5203 of 2010, dated 23.01.2012, wherein, the
Punjab and Haryana High Court has relied upon the said Circular,
dated 26.05.1977, and came to a conclusion that Diploma holders
on completion of ten years of technical experience are entitled to
be treated as equivalent to degree holders. Leaned Senior
Standing Counsel further contended that when the recruitment
4 AKS,J & RRN,J
Rules and notification categorically state that one must have
degree as essential qualification, the question of treating
respondent No.1 as a graduate and considering his case for
promotion to the post of Technical Assistant would not arise.
Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by
setting aside the impugned order, dated 20.01.2016, passed by
the Tribunal and allow the Writ Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1 had contended that nowhere in the Writ Petition
the petitioners have contended that the Circular, dated
26.05.1977, is not applicable to the petitioners' department and
the said Circular is applicable only to Engineering graduates.
Admittedly, one of the qualifications prescribed for the post of
Technical Assistant is Chemical Engineering of Food Technology.
As admittedly, respondent No.1 is having Diploma in Food
Technology and is having more than 12 years of experience, in
terms of the Circular, dated 26.05.1977, the qualification of
Diploma, on completion of 12 years of technical experience, must
be treated as equivalent to Degree in Engineering. Learned
counsel further contended that the said Circular was also followed
by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No.5203 of 2010,
dated 23.01.2012, and a principal Bench of the Tribunal has also
5 AKS,J & RRN,J
taken a similar view, which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court
in W.P.(C).No.4879 of 2014. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified
in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of respondent No.1.
Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel on either side, is of the considered view that
the Tribunal was pleased to allow the subject O.A. by following the
Circular, dated 26.05.1977. Neither in the writ affidavit nor in the
grounds, the petitioners had stated that the said Circular is not
applicable to the petitioners' department. Further, the Tribunal
has merely directed the petitioners to consider the case of
respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant
by treating him as a graduate. Therefore, it is always open for the
petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1 and pass
appropriate orders, in accordance with law, if respondent No.1 is
otherwise eligible as per the Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal was
justified in allowing the subject O.A. in favour of respondent No.1
and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order,
dated 20.01.2016.
6 AKS,J & RRN,J
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
_________________________________
JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date: 10.04.2024
Tssb/MD
