AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: Hon’ble ShriJayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
The grievance of the applicant in the instant OA is against the respondents’ failure to give effect to his appointment as Skilled Work Assistant (SWA) despite his having been shortlisted, declared successful in the selection process and issued an appointment letter dated 01.02.2018. The respondents subsequently questioned the recognition of his Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, despite the applicant furnishing supporting documents, representations and RTI responses regarding the recognition of the said Board. Despite repeated representations and interim protection granted by the Hon’ble High Court, the applicant has not been granted the benefit of his appointment, compelling him to approach the Tribunal.
Thus, by filing the instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
"(A)This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to admit and allow the present Application;
(B)This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 Ahmedabad to appoint the Applicant herein at the post of Skilled Work Bench Assistant (SWA) under Work Charged Establishment of Hydrological Observation Circle, CWC, Gandhinagar in pursuance of the letter of appointment dated 01.02.2018;
(C)Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Central Administrative Tribunalapplication, this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to reserve one seats in the post of Skilled Work Assistant (SWA)under Work Charged Establishment of Hydrological Observation Circle, CWC, Gandhinagar, to be occupied by the Applicant in the event that they succeed before this Hon’ble Tribunal;
(D)This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass any further orders that it may deem fit and in the interest of justice in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case."
The applicant, Deva Ram, applied for the post of Skilled Work Assistant (SWA) under the Work Charged Establishment of the Hydrological Observation Circle, Central Water Commission, Gandhinagar, pursuant to the recruitment notice bearing F. No.A-46/1/SWA-Recruitment/2017 (Annexure A/1). The applicant claims that he fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria and submitted his application accordingly.
On 16.01.2018, the respondents issued a provisional list of 285 candidates shortlisted on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination, wherein the applicant’s name appeared at Serial No. 52 (Annexure A/2). Thereafter, on 27.01.2018 and 28.01.2018, the applicant appeared in the prescribed physical test.
On 30.01.2018, the respondents issued a list of 67 successful candidates, wherein the applicant was placed at Serial No.12 in the General Category (Annexure A/3). Consequently, an appointment letter dated 01.02.2018 was issued to the applicant for appointment as Skilled Work Assistant (SWA) under the Work Charged Establishment of H.O. Circle, CWC, Gandhinagar (Annexure A/4).
Subsequently, vide letter dated 26.02.2018, the respondents raised an objection regarding the applicant’s Matriculation Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, and called upon him to furnish supporting documents regarding the Bench validity/recognition of the said Board (Annexure A/5).
The applicant submitted representations dated 21.03.2018 and 22.03.2018, furnishing documents and relying upon notifications and Central Administrative Tribunaljudicial precedents to contend that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was a legally established and recognised Educational Board. He also submitted further representations dated 08.04.2018 and 30.05.2018 before the concerned authorities, asserting that he had furnished all documents necessary to establish the recognition of his educational qualification (Annexures A/6 (Colly.), A/7, A/8 and A/9 respectively).
On 02.06.2018 and 21.06.2018, one Shri Sataram Joshi made applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Office of the Central Water Commission, New Delhi seeking clarification regarding the eligibility of candidates possessing educational qualifications from Boards recognised by a State Government. The replies dated 11.06.2018 and 26.06.2018 of the Central Water Commission were stated to have affirmed the eligibility of such candidates for appointment. (Annexure A/10 Colly.)
The applicant by referring the reply of the respondents under the RTI also submitted a representation dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure A/11) before the Chairman, Central Water Commission seeking appropriate action regarding his appointment. On 10.01.2019 (Annexure A/12), he further represented to the concerned Minister and furnished an affidavit stating that in the event his educational documents were ultimately found invalid, his appointment could be withdrawn.
It is stated that despite the aforesaid representations and production of supporting documents, the respondents did not take any appropriate action to give effect to his appointment as Skilled Work Assistant.
Being aggrieved, the applicant and similarly situated persons approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by filing Special Civil Bench Applications Nos. 16147 of 2019 & 16148 of 2019 and the Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 24.09.2019 (Annexure A/13), granted interim protection by directing the respondents to keep a seat available for the applicant in the event of his ultimate success.
Subsequently, vide Order dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure A/14), the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the aforesaid SCAs as withdrawn on the ground of want of jurisdiction, while granting liberty to the applicants to approach the appropriate forum. The Hon'ble High Court also observed that the time consumed in the proceedings before it would not operate to the detriment of the applicants in the subsequent proceedings.
Hence, this OA.
Pursuant to notice issued to the respondents, they have filed their reply and deny the claim of the applicant. On receipt of the reply, the applicant herein has also filed his rejoinder.
Shri Prithu Parimal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had obtained his Matriculation Certificate from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, on 21.06.2013, whereas the public notice dated 28.10.2013 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Department of School Education and Literacy regarding the unrecognised Board was issued subsequently. Therefore, any alleged de-recognition could operate only prospectively and could not retrospectively invalidate the applicant’s educational qualification (Annexure A/15 Colly.).
Learned counsel further submitted that, in replies furnished under the RTI Act to one Mr. Sitaram Joshi (Annexure A/10 Colly.), the Respondents have themselves agreed that a Board of Secondary Education is recognised from which a candidate has attained his secondary education has been recognized by a State Government, thus, the qualification obtained therefrom would be treated as valid for employment with the respondents' authorities. Thus, the respondents Ahmedabad have taken contradictory stands in denying the applicant’s appointment despite his qualification having been obtained from a recognised Board.
Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant had duly fulfilled the eligibility requirements prescribed in the recruitment advertisement and had submitted all the requisite documents. He was consequently permitted to participate in the selection process. His matriculation marksheet dated 21.06.2013 is genuine and authentic and satisfies the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Skilled Work Assistant.
Learned counsel also contended that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was established under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and was included in the list of recognised Boards under the Government Gazette dated 08.03.2014, as mentioned at Entry No.40 in the recognised Boards (Annexure A/6 Colly.). The applicant, therefore, possessed a valid matriculation qualification recognised in law.
Learned counsel further submits that the MHRD itself had clarified that it neither grants recognition to education Boards nor regulates their establishment, as is evident from Annexure A/16). Rather, the same are set up by Central/State/UT Governments. Therefore, reliance upon the public notice dated 28.10.2013 issued by the MHRD to invalidate the applicant’s qualification is misplaced. Further, it is also submitted that Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) is not the authority competent to grant recognition to an education Board and non-membership of CBSE cannot, by itself, render the Board unrecognised.
It is further argued that even the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, vide its reply dated 27.08.2018, admitted that the Board appeared in the list of recognised Boards as on 05.03.2014, while subsequently taking a contrary stand on 26.09.2018 (Annexure A/19 Colly.). Such contradictory positions demonstrate the uncertainty surrounding the respondents’ case regarding recognition of the Board.
Bench 5.6 Learned counsel also submitted that several Government authorities, universities and educational institutions, including the relevant authorities in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Kerala, Haryana and Delhi, have recognised the qualifications obtained from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. The applicant had obtained his Matriculation Certificate in 2013, i.e. prior to the alleged de-recognition, and, therefore, his qualification could not subsequently be rendered invalid retrospectively.
Learned counsel also contended that the Central Water Commission itself, in its RTI replies dated 25.07.2018 and 23.04.2019 (Annexure A/30), had admitted that certificates obtained from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior constituted an eligible qualification for employment with the Central Water Commission. Despite its own such stand, the respondents have denied appointment to the applicant, who possesses the very same qualification.
Lastly, learned counsel submits that the applicant possesses a genuine, authentic and recognised educational qualification and that the respondents have no lawful or reasonable basis to deny him employment as Skilled Work Assistant. Thus, the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unfounded and inconsistent with their own earlier decisions and admissions, and therefore the applicant is entitled to the relief sought for.
Per contra; Shri H.D. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to the contents of the reply mainly submitted as under :
The applicant herein had applied for the post of Skilled Work Assistant pursuant to Online Application invited by the respondents. While applying, the applicant had accepted the various terms and conditions of the recruitment notice published by the respondents. Therefore, the applicant was required to hold valid education qualification as per the agreed terms of the advertisement and if the applicant is found ineligible Bench as per the terms of the advertisement, then he is not entitled to get an appointment and the present application deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Central Administrative Tribunal6.2 Learned counsel also submitted that it was specifically mentioned in the said advertisement that the requirement of educational qualification of (SWA) post is Matriculation or ITI or equivalent from recognized Board/University/Institution. The applicant who was one of the candidates had accepted and agreed upon the said condition while applying for the said post and therefore, if any candidate is found ineligible on the ground of not holding the said required educational qualification from recognized Board/University/Institution, the said candidate is not entitled to the appointment in view of specific condition of the said advertisement published by the respondents. Therefore, any submissions or contentions contrary to the said specific condition of advertisement are specifically denied and the applicant is not entitled to raise any contention contrary to the said advertisement. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled to any relief contrary to the said advertisement whatsoever alleged in the instant OA.
Learned counsel also submitted that applicant is not holding the valid educational qualification certificate from the recognized Board/University/Institution, and, therefore, he is not entitled to any equitable relief whatsoever claimed in the present OA. The applicant claimed his educational qualification on the basis of high school examination certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior. The applicant vide his letter dated 21.03.2018, claimed that the said Board is recognized by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. With a view to verify the authenticity of the educational certificate, the respondents had written a letter to Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh requesting to confirm the authenticity of Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior, vide letter dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure R/1). The letter is self-Bench explanatory and gives references of the public notice dated 28.10.2013 issued by Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) and references of Court cases wherein the authenticity/credentials of the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior are established to be unlawful.
Learned counsel also contended that in response to the said letter, the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh vide its letter dated 02.07.2018 (AnnexureR2) have clearly conveyed that the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior is not a recognized Institution of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh and the exams conducted by the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior are not recognized by Madhyamik ShikshaParishad, Uttar Pradesh. Further, elaboration on letter from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh was requested by CWC Headquarter vide its letter dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure R/3) whereby specific queries were raised regarding recognition of the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior. In response to this letter, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh vide its letter dated 13.11.2018 (Annexure R/4) gave clear cut clarification that the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior is not established by law because it has not been constituted under any Central or State Government Act. As per this letter, before the year 1952, in Delhi and other parts of the country, many boards like Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Delhi, Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi, Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior and other examination institutions were in operation. Later on, after the establishment of Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi in 1952 by Government of India the existence of all such educational boards came to an end. The Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior being mentioned in the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh regulations was illegally conducting High School and Intermediate examinations which were declared invalid by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh.
Learned counsel also submitted that CWC headquarter further sought clarifications from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh vide its letter dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure R/5).
The clarifications received from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh vide its letter dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure R/6) vide which following points have been made clear :
"After the establishment of Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi by Government of India in 1952 and after reorganization of the States by the Government of India, the existence of all such then existing educational boards came to an end. The Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior has not been established by law and hence the examinations conducted by the said board are not equivalent to the examinations conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha’ Parishad, Uttar Pradesh.”
Learned counsel further informed that in compliance with the order of Hon’ble High Court, the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior is under investigation by the CBI. A letter was also written to MHRD dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure R/7) requesting for the clarification on the legal status/recognition of the board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior. As a response to this letter, MHRD vide its letter dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure R/8) conveyed that the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior has neither been setup nor recognized by MHRD. The said letter also provides the constitutional provisions regarding the powers to make acts for setting up of educational boards within their respective area of jurisdiction.
Learned counsel would also argue that the respondents have got the certified copy of the judgment in case Nos.630/2016, 453/2016 & 28983/2016 of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad (Annexure R/9) in the matter of recognition/existence of the said board where in the Hon'ble High Court had clearly observed that:
“In view of the facts and circumstances stated aforesaid and in the present scenario, we find that the said board is not at all inexistence and issuance of certificate is a designed activity, by luring such candidates who on their own will not at all be in a position to clear examination conducted by duly recognised board....”
“Authority to hold examination and issue certificate is completely lacking and missing and accordingly the inevitable conclusion is that the certificate of class 10thand 12thissued by Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior are not recognised and same is merely an outcome of paperwork, therefore, are not equivalent. It is unrecognised board and the certificates as well. Such Institutions are conducting examination by misleading the students...”
"Such examination conducted by the institutions is not recognized under law and must be closed in public interest. We find that this is not the case of equivalence of the Board but it is the case of fake institution. Nothing has been brought before us that at any point of time the alleged board was ever accorded approval in the state of M.P. as such no question arises for its equivalence in the state of U.P.”
Learned counsel also submitted that vide letter dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure R/10) issued by the respondents, the applicant was conveyed that “In view of above, you are hereby directed to furnish, the document in support of recognition of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior (Certified true copy of the Registration Certificate) issued from appropriate authority of Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India or education Department of State Government, within 30 days from the issue of this letter, failing which your candidature will be suo-motu cancelled and no further correspondence in this regard shall be made to you.”
However, the applicant failed the produce any lawfully valid document in support of the recognition of the said Board. Accordingly, his candidature was cancelled.
Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant made references of many court cases in support of his claim, however, in none of the case said Board have successfully proved its lawful existence. Rather, Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad vide its judgment in case Nos. 630/2016, 453/2016 & 28983/2016 specifically observed that “nothing have been brought before us that at any point of time the alleged board was accorded approval in the state M.P, as such no question arises for its equivalence in the State of U.P.”
Further, a letter addressed to all State Government by the Secretary Bench MHRD dated 28.04.2016 (Annexure R/11) has a reference that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment dated 11.02.2005 in the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr v/s. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. observed that "….in view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the Legislature of the State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State....”.
In pursuance of the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the UGC issued two letters No. F.9-8/2008 (CPP-I) dated 16.04.2009 addressed to all the State Governments and dated 15.06.2009 addressed to Vice Chancellors of all State Universities and it was requested to (i) take immediate action to take suitable steps for amending the existing Acts made so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and (ii) to stop all the State/State Private Universities in the State from operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their State in any manner.
Learned counsel contended that thus in view of the above, it is clear that an education board cannot have operations extending beyond the State boundaries. In the present case, the said board operating from M.P. is claimed to have recognition from the Madhymik Shiksha Parishad belonging to U.P. State, which is in contravention to the constitutional law. As such, the said Board of State of M.P. cannot have legal recognition for Madyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. and the applicant's claim is illegal.
Learned counsel also contended that the Ministry of Railways vide its letter No.E(NG)-IT/2008/RR-1/35 dated 04.01.2013 (Annexure R/12) conveyed the decision of the Railway Board regarding acceptance or otherwise of certificates/qualifications awarded by various Institutions for the purpose of employment in Railways. The letter gives the list of five institutions including the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior (MP). The said letter clearly mentions that since these Ahmedabad institutions are not member boards of CBSE (Council of Boards of School Education in India), therefore, certificates/qualification obtained from these Institutions is not acceptable for the purpose of employment in railways.
In a similar case of Subash Chander Vs State of Haryana and others (CWP No.15019 of 2015), in the matter of Matriculation Certificate issued by Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior, the Honorable High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its judgment observed that "Once the board has no statutory backing, having not been recognised by any statutory authority and is found operating on the basis of fake and forged letters of recognition, there is no hesitation in my mind to hold that the applicant did not possess the prescribed qualification and that the matriculation qualification, claimed to be passed by him has no recognition in law."
Learned counsel also reiterated that the “offer of appointment” given by respondents to the applicant was subject to certain terms and conditions given therein, which included verification of certificate of Education issued by University/Board. It was clearly mentioned in the offer letter that “in case adverse/Negative report is received from the concerned authority, the service will be terminated immediately without assigning any reason or notice”. The verification of the education board was sought from the Madyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P.. In view of the adverse report from the Parishad, and also due the failure of the applicant to produce any lawfully valid document in support of the recognition of the said board, the applicant is ineligible for the appointment. It was also clearly mentioned in the offer of appointment that “the offer of appointment does not in any case involve commitment for appointment to the post.” In view of the above, the applicant cannot claim the appointment to the post in question as a matter of right.
Further, the claim of the applicant that the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior has been lawfully established under Ahmedabad the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is false and denied. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 12.02.2019 have clearly stated that after the establishment of Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi by Government of India in 1952 and Central Administrative Tribunalafter reorganization of the States by the Government of India, the existence of all such then existing educational boards came to an end. Moreover, it was clarified that the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior has not been established by law and, hence, the examinations conducted by the said board are not equivalent to the examinations conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. Learned counsel also informed that in compliance with the aforesaid Order of Hon’ble High Court, the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior is under investigation by the CBI. The Gazette of Govt. U.P. published on 08.07.1995 indicating the name of the said board at Serial No.40 is legally invalid as after 1952 as the existence of all such then existing boards have come to end. It is submitted that the Gazette of Govt. of U.P. published on 08.03.2014 actually does not indicate recognition of the said board in any manner as claimed by the applicant. Rather, the Gazette gives revised list of recognized institutions and this list does not include the name of the said board.
Learned counsel also submitted that applicant has referred to a RTI reply given by Central Water Commission HQ dated 25.07.2018, where by the affirmative reply given by CPIO has been interpreted in a wrong way by the applicant. The affirmative reply given is in respect of the question regarding eligibility of a candidate for Government service, who has cleared 10th/12th examination from a recognized education board. The answer is not for the matter of recognition of the said board itself. It is to point out that the RTI applicant himself has given the statement in the RTI query that "the board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior which has been recognized by the Uttar Ahmedabad Pradesh government till year 2014....". The Central Public Information Officer, Central Water Commission, Headquarter has only answered the question part of the query under RTI which is pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate for Government service, who has passed Central Administrative Tribunal10th/12th examination from a recognized Education Board. Thus, the RTI reply given by the CPIO cannot become basis for claiming the appointment to the post for which the applicant does not possess legally valid educational qualification certificate.
Further, learned counsel contended that the applicant has claimed that the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior is recognized by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. However, the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh vide its letter dated 13.11.2018 to Central Water Commission, Headquarter has clearly stated that after the establishment of Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi in 1952 by Government of India the existence of all such then existing educational councils came to an end. Moreover, it was clarified that the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior has not been established by law and hence, the examinations conducted by the said board are not equivalent to the examinations conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. In the judgment in case Nos.630/2016, 453/2016 & 28983/2016, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has clearly said that "nothing have been brought before us that at any point of time the alleged board was accorded approval in the State M.P, as such no question arises for its equivalence in the state of U.P.”
Further, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 11.02.2005 in the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr v/s. State of Chhasttisgarh & Ors. observed that “in view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the Legislature of the State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State..." In pursuance of the above observations of Ahmedabad Hon'ble Supreme Court, the UGC issued two letters Nos. F.9-8/2008 (CPP-I) dated 16.04.2009 addressed to all the State Governments and dated 15.06.2009 addressed to Vice Chancellors of all State Universities vide letter dated 16.04.2009 addressed to State Central Administrative TribunalGovernments, it was requested to (i) take immediate action to take Suitable steps for amending the existing Acts made so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and (ii) to stop all the State/State Private Universities in the State from operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their State in any manner. In view of the above it is clear that State Education Council/ Board/ University cannot have operation extending beyond the State boundaries. In the present case, the said Board operating from M.P. is claimed to have recognition from the Madhymik Shiksha Parishad belonging to U.P. State, which is in contravention to the constitutional law. As such, the said Board cannot have legal recognition for Madyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. and the claim is illegal. Clearly the said Board never had legally valid recognition or legal existence after the establishment of Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi in 1952 by Government of India, so the question of applying the de-recognition with prospective effect does no arise.
Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has no cause of action against the respondents and the present OA is nothing but abuse of process of law, and therefore, prayed that instant OA may not be entertained in the interest of justice.
In response to the above submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, by referring the rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the submissions as noted above. Additionally, it is submitted that applicant has obtained his Matriculation Certificate on 21.06.2012 i.e. prior to the so called de-recognition of the Board and therefore, he cannot be held to be ineligible for appointment to the post Bench of SWA under Work Charged Establishment of Hydrological Observation Circle, CWC, Gandhinagar. Further, it is stated that the information supplied under the RTI, the respondents conveyed that the certification obtained from the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior are considered and valid. Therefore, the respondent authorities are contradicting themselves, in their reply and acted arbitrarily.
The respondents have also filed additional reply wherein it has been submitted that as per the communication dated 08.03.2018, it was conveyed that on advice of (erstwhile) MoWR, RD & GR (now DoWR, RD & GR) all recruitment in Work Charged Establishment of CWC has been directed to kept on hold by all field organizations of CWC till the further order (Annexure R/13).
Further, it is stated that vide the order dated 06.06.2022, it has been conveyed that as per the instruction by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), 2979 vacant positions in various categories of Work Charged establishment of the CWC have been abolished. No new position in the Work Charged Establishment shall be filled up by any means (Annexure R/14). Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has no cause of action against the answering opponent.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the judgments on which reliance is placed by the parties.
It emerges from the records that the applicant, Deva Ram, applied for the post of SWA under the Work Charged Establishment of the Hydrological Observation Circle, Central Water Commission, Gandhinagar, pursuant to the recruitment notice issued by the respondents. The applicant was shortlisted in the provisional list dated 16.01.2018 and thereafter participated in the prescribed physical test held on 27.01.2018 and 28.01.2018. The applicant was subsequently Bench included at Serial No.12 in the list of 67 successful candidates issued on 30.01.2018, and an appointment letter dated 01.02.2018 was issued to him for the post of Skilled Work Assistant.
Central Administrative Tribunal10.1 Thereafter, the respondents raised an objection regarding the matriculation certificate produced by the applicant, which had been issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, and called upon him to furnish documents in support of the recognition of the said Board. The applicant submitted various representations and supporting documents in response to the objection. The applicant also relied upon RTI replies and other documents concerning the recognition of the said Board and made further representations seeking implementation of his appointment. Despite the same, his appointment was not given effect to. The applicant and similarly situated persons thereafter approached the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, which, vide order dated 24.09.2019, granted interim protection by directing the respondents to keep a seat available for the applicant in the event of his ultimate success. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.08.2021, the High Court disposed of the said proceedings as withdrawn for want of jurisdiction, while granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum and protecting the applicants against the period spent in the High Court proceedings.
The respondents’ case is that the appointment was subject to verification of the applicant’s educational qualification and that the matriculation certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was not from a recognised Board. The respondents, therefore, cancelled the applicant’s candidature after he failed to furnish, to their satisfaction, valid documents establishing recognition of the said Board. The dispute between the parties, thus, essentially concerns the validity and recognition of the applicant’s matriculation qualification obtained from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior and, consequently, his entitlement Ahmedabad to appointment to the post of SWA pursuant to the appointment letter dated 01.02.2018.
Having considered the rival submissions, the issue that arises for determination is whether the applicant can claim appointment to the post of Skilled Work Assistant merely on the basis of the appointment letter dated 01.02.2018, notwithstanding the respondents’ subsequent verification showing that the Matriculation Certificate relied upon by him was not issued by a recognised Board.
The undisputed position is that the recruitment advertisement prescribed Matriculation or ITI or equivalent qualification from a recognised Board/ University/ Institution. The applicant participated in the selection process subject to the said condition. He was shortlisted, declared successful and an appointment letter dated 01.02.2018 was issued to him. However, the appointment was not unconditional. The respondents subsequently sought verification of the educational qualification and, vide communication dated 26.02.2018, specifically required the applicant to furnish documentary proof establishing recognition of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior.
The applicant's principal contention is that he had obtained the Matriculation Certificate on 21.06.2013 and that the public notice issued by MHRD on 28.10.2013 was subsequent thereto; hence, according to him, any subsequent de-recognition could not retrospectively invalidate his qualification. He has further relied upon certain RTI replies, Government notifications and other material to contend that the Board was recognised.
We are unable to accept the above submission. The question is not merely whether the applicant possessed a certificate bearing the nomenclature of a matriculation qualification, but whether, on the relevant date, the certificate was a legally recognised qualification satisfying the express condition of the recruitment advertisement. The Ahmedabad respondents were, therefore, justified in verifying the status of the Board before giving final effect to the appointment.
The material relied upon by the respondents assumes considerable significance. The Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, in its communications dated 02.07.2018, 13.11.2018 and 12.02.2019, communicated that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was not a recognised institution and had not been established by law. The respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Case Nos. 630/2016, 453/2016 and 28983/2016, wherein the certificates issued by the said Board were held to be unrecognised and lacking legal foundation.
Significantly, the applicant has not placed before us any authoritative statutory instrument establishing that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was a legally constituted and recognised Board competent to conduct the examination, in question. Mere inclusion of the name of the Board in an old list or reliance upon an RTI response cannot substitute the statutory recognition required by the recruitment advertisement. The respondents' RTI reply also cannot be read as an independent declaration granting recognition to the Board; as explained by the respondents, the query itself proceeded on the assumption that the Board was recognised.
The law is equally clear that eligibility and equivalence of qualifications are matters primarily within the domain of the recruiting authority. In Union of India v. Uzair Imran, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308, the Supreme Court reiterated that ordinarily it is not the function of a court to determine equivalence of qualifications or to scrutinise a certificate and substitute its own view for that of the employer; the employer is entitled to determine whether a candidate satisfies the prescribed eligibility requirements. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
"22.Normally, it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence Ahmedabad of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a particular certificate and say, on the basis of its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received from interested candidates or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration i.e. to participate in the selection process. It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence.
23.Notwithstanding this settled legal position, the stage when ineligibility is cited for not offering employment also assumes importance. It is indeed indisputable that none has any legal right to claim public employment. In terms of Article 16 of the Constitution, a candidate has only a right to be considered therefor. Once a candidate is declared ineligible to participate in the selection process at the threshold and if he still wishes to participate in the process perceiving that his candidature has been arbitrarily rejected, it is for him to work out his remedy in accordance with law. However, if the candidature is not rejected at the threshold and the candidate is allowed to participate in the selection process and ultimately his name figures in the merit list — though such candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment — he does have a limited right of being accorded fair and non-discriminatory treatment."
The same principle was recently applied by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Roshniben Anilbhai Gavit v. State of Gujarat (SCA No.5994 of 2017 and other connected cases) decided on 08.08.2025, where the Court held that the question whether a qualification satisfies the prescribed requirement is primarily for the recruiting authority and that judicial review cannot be used to enlarge the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement, the relevant portion of which are reproduced as under:
"10.2At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sajid Khan versus L.Rahmathullah and others reported in AIR 2025 SC 1300, more particularly paras : 18 to 21thereof, which read as under.
“18.In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the appellants and there is no Bench apparent or glaring difference in the qualifications, we see no reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post Central Administrative Tribunalin cases of disputed equivalence. This Court has stated the same in categorical terms in its decision Anand Yadav v.State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 390. : 32. We may also notice another important aspect i.e. the employer ultimately being the best judge ofwho should be appointed. The choice was of Respondent 2 who sought the assistance of an expert committee in view of the representation of some of the appellants. The eminence of the expert committee is apparent from its composition. That committee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand taken by the appellants, and Respondent 2 as employer decided to concur with the same and accepted the committee's opinion. It is really not for the appellants or the contesting respondent to contend how and in what manner a degree should be obtained, which would make them eligible for appointment by Respondent No.2. (emphasis supplied)
19.The recruiting authority has scrutinised the qualifications before deciding that they satisfy what is enumerated in the advertisement. It is not the case of the respondents that the authority in the present case has not applied its mind in scrutinising the appellants diplomas. In MukulKumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86, this Court had an occasion to consider the approach to be adopted by the recruiting agency/employer while considering the issue of equivalence of qualifications and directed asunder:
59.The equivalence of qualification as claimed by a candidate is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer. It is the recruiting agency which has to be satisfied as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of qualification is fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for Bench the job. It is the recruiting agency who is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate as to whether a candidate is eligible and entitled to participate in the selection. More so when Central Administrative Tribunalthe advertisement clearly contemplates that certificate concerning the qualification shall be scrutinised, it was the duty and obligation of the recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or self-declaration by a candidate that his computer qualification is equivalent to CCC has neither been envisaged in the advertisement nor can be said to be fulfilling the eligibility condition. (emphasis supplied) 20. Similarly, in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6SCC 362, it was held that :
9.The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the Ahmedabad conditions of the advertisement contrary to the Bench plain language of the same.
21.Though, there a number of decisions on this very principle, Mohd Shujat Ali v. Union of India,(1975) 3 SCC 76; Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 (2) SCC Central Administrative Tribunal55; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v/s. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404, we will conclude with a recent decision of this Court in Union of India v Uzair Imran, 2023SCC OnLine SC 1308, emphasizing the restraint a court must exercise while determining equivalence between qualifications. The relevant portion is as under :
14.Normally, it is not the function ofthe court to determine equivalence oftwo qualifications and/or to scrutinise aparticular certificate and say, on thebasis of its appreciation thereof, thatthe holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received from interested candidates or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to participate in the selection process. It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence. (emphasis supplied)”
The principle is particularly applicable in the present case because the advertisement expressly required the educational qualification to be from a recognised Board. The applicant cannot, therefore, contend that once he was shortlisted or an appointment letter was issued, the respondents became estopped from subsequently verifying whether the basic eligibility condition had actually been satisfied. The appointment letter itself was subject to verification of the educational certificate and Ahmedabad contained a stipulation that an adverse report regarding the qualification could result in termination, apart from making it clear that the offer did not constitute an unconditional commitment to appointment.
Central Administrative Tribunal19. The recent decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bariya Kiritsinh Dalpatsinh v. State of Gujarat, decided on 17.07.2025, also supports the respondents' position. There, the Hon'ble High Court upheld termination where appointments had been made on the basis of qualifications obtained from an unrecognised institution, observing that where the prescribed qualification was not recognised at the relevant time, the authorities were justified in treating the candidates as ineligible.
The applicant's reliance upon the fact that his certificate was obtained in 2013, whereas the MHRD public notice was issued on 28.10.2013, therefore does not advance his case. The respondents' case is not founded merely upon retrospective application of the said public notice. Their case is that the Board itself lacked lawful recognition or statutory existence and, consequently, the certificate did not satisfy the basic qualification prescribed in the advertisement. The respondents have relied upon independent communications and judicial findings in support of that position. We are in agreement with the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Board itself lacked lawful recognition or statutory existence and, consequently, the certificate did not satisfy the basic qualification prescribed in the advertisement.
It is also material that the applicant was specifically afforded an opportunity to produce a valid document establishing recognition of the Board, but he failed to furnish such legally valid proof. Consequently, cancellation of his candidature cannot be characterised as arbitrary merely because he had earlier been shortlisted and issued an appointment letter.
The fact that the applicant was successful in the selection process also Bench does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. Selection cannot cure absence of the prescribed essential qualification. A candidate, who does not satisfy the basic eligibility condition, cannot claim appointment merely because his candidature was initially accepted or because he was included in the select list. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the terms of the advertisement governing eligibility must be respected and that Courts cannot confer eligibility contrary to those terms. The recent Hon'ble Supreme Court jurisprudence continues to maintain this distinction between selection and actual entitlement to appointment.
As regards the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat on 24.09.2019 directing the respondents to keep one seat available, the said order did not amount to a declaration that the applicant possessed the requisite qualification. It merely protected his position pending adjudication. The subsequent order dated 09.08.2021 disposed of the proceedings on the ground of want of jurisdiction and granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum, i.e., this Tribunal. Therefore, those orders do not create any substantive right to appointment.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the applicant has failed to establish that the matriculation certificate produced by him was issued by a legally recognised Board satisfying the express requirement of the aforesaid recruitment advertisement. The respondents were, therefore, justified in withholding/cancelling his candidature after verification of the qualification. The issuance of the appointment letter dated 01.02.2018, being subject to verification and the fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility condition does not confer an absolute or vested right to appointment. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the applicant.
In the result, for the forgoing discussion, the instant OA, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.
Bench 26. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of as well.