Kiran Raj K. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The sole applicant who had responded to Annexure A1 Centralized Employment Notice (CEN) No. 3/2024 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board for recruitment to various posts, aggrieved by the withholding of his result and non-issuance of appointment order doubting his educational qualification, has approached this Tribunal.

The applicant joined Indian Air Force on 28.6.2005. He retired from service on 30.6.2025, evidenced by Annexure A2 discharge certificate dated 30.6.2025. While so, Annexure A1 notification was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board inviting applications to fill up various posts. The applicant responded to Annexure A1 notification to the post of Junior Engineer. The document verification of the applicant was done on 21.7.2025. The educational qualification required for applying to the post of JE was 3 years diploma in mechanical engineering and various other streams as mentioned in Annexure A1 notification. Applicant, claiming that he was holding 3 years diploma in mechanical engineering applied to the said post. Applicant relied on Annexure A5 certificate issued by Indian Air Force dated 22.5.2025, evidencing that the applicant held a diploma in mechanical engineering. While so, the applicant received Annexure A6 email communication from the 2^nd respondent dated 29.7.2025 informing that the applicant had submitted the certificate of diploma in mechanical engineering (IAF Trade Weapon Fitter) issued from Indian Air Force, in which the name of recognized University/Institute was not mentioned. Accordingly, the applicant approached the 3^rd respondent and submitted a representation answering Annexure A6. The 3^rd respondent issued a clarification dated 4.8.2025 intimating that the 3^rd respondent issues certificates in diploma in engineering to all eligible Air Veterans at the time of retirement, under the authority of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) letter dated 10.3.2003. A clarification issued in that regard dated 4.8.2025 was produced as Annexure A7.

The applicant submitted Annexure A8 representation dated 18.12.2025 expressing his concern regarding non-empanelment of ex-servicemen candidates including the applicant. He also claimed that applications of candidates who were holding similar certificates from the same organization were accepted by various Railway Recruitment Boards. He also submitted a representation to the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System dated 9.1.2026 produced as Annexure A10. He was served with Annexure A11 reply wherein it was stated that as per the notification, the qualification for the post of JEs was 3 years diploma in respective engineering discipline from a recognized University/institution. No relaxation was permitted for ex-servicemen in educational qualification. The certificate submitted by the applicant during document verification as proof of educational qualification did not mention the name of the institution and the duration of course did not tally with the conditions prescribed in Annexure A3.

According to the applicant, various RRBs had accepted similar certificates. Hence, he obtained Annexure A15 certificate issued by the competent authority dated 6.2.2026 informing that the applicant had undergone and successfully completed the prescribed training, practical and examination from Mechanical Training Institute, Air Force Station, Tambaram, Chennai from 28.6.2005 to 18.9.2009 including on job training at Ops Unit which was of three years duration.

Accordingly, claiming that his result has been unreasonably withheld, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

When the OA came up for admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for Railways it was directed that the respondents shall keep one post of Junior Engineer vacant in Trivandrum Division, till the next date of posting. This order was being extended from time to time.

Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in their reply statement contended that the actual allotment of a candidate to a specific division is determined solely by the PCPO, Southern Railway Headquarters based on the final merit position, medical fitness and administrative requirements at the time of panel distribution. Hence, the interim relief granted by this Tribunal to keep one post vacant in Trivandrum Division was not tenable at this juncture. During the document verification, it was noted that the applicant had failed to produce a valid certificate evidencing the prescribed educational qualification as required under the notification and hence his document verification was withheld. In the certificate issued by the authority it was stated that the trade was Weapon Fitter of the Indian Air Force. Approval for considering in-house training and courses organized by the Indian Air Force as equivalent to a diploma is governed by AICTE letter dated 10.3.2003 subject to conditions. As per AICTE communication dated 10.3.2003, the Mechanical Training Institute, Tambaram has been granted approval to conduct the diploma in Weapon Fitter, subject to certain conditions including that the duration shall be three years and that the diploma must be awarded by the concerned institution under the guidance of the Directorate of Training, Air Headquarters. There is no mention of award of such certificate by the Directorate of Air Veterans. The certificate produced by the applicant during document verification did not specify the name of the institution or the duration of the course. They were mandatory conditions essential to establish the compliance with the conditions prescribed by AICTE and the CEN. It was stated that the AICTE vide letter dated 10.3.2003 permitted the conduct of diploma programmes under Air Force institutions, subject to specific conditions, including that the programme must be of three years duration with the prescribed entry qualification. It was stated that the result of the applicant was withheld for valid reasons.

The 3^rd respondent filed a separate reply statement. It was stated that the applicant had undergone and successfully completed the prescribed training, practical training and examinations at the Mechanical Training Institute, Air Force Station, Tambaram, Chennai a training institute recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) during the period from 28.6.2005 to 18.09.2009. The training programme comprised 3 years of institutional training, including on the job training (OJT) at an operational unit, in accordance with the prescribed curriculum. Accordingly, he was issued with Annexure A5, referring to diploma in mechanical engineering certificate bearing Sl. No. 20251171 under the authority of AICTE letter dated 10.03.2003 produced as Annexure A3, in consonance with Appendix ‘A’ of headquarters communication dated 12.11.2018.

Directorate of Air Veterans had issued clarifications dated 8.8.2025 and dated 6.2.2026 on the question of granting diploma certificates to the RRB produced as Annexures R3(a) and R3(b) respectively. It was clarified that Annexure A5 “Diploma in Mechanical Engineering” certificate bearing serial No. 20251171 was issued to the applicant under the authority of AICTE letter dated 10.3.2003 in consonance with Appendix ‘A’ to the Air Force Headquarters communication dated 12.11.2018 produced as Annexure R3(d). Annexure A3 corresponds to Annexure R3(c). Annexure A5 corresponds to Annexure R3(a). It was further stated that the proposal for inclusion of the name of institution on diploma certificate is under revision and the same will be incorporated on approval from Air Force Order (AFO).

A rejoinder was filed by the applicant traversing the various allegations in the reply statements.

Heard both sides and examined the records.

The crucial question is whether the applicant had secured diploma in mechanical engineering from an institution recognized by the AICTE and has undergone the diploma course for 3 years. Annexure A5 is the certificate heavily relied on by the applicant to establish it. It was issued by the Indian Air Force, as a certificate in diploma in mechanical engineering. It states that the applicant who had served Air Force from 28.6.2005 to 30.06.2025 had undergone and successfully completed the prescribed training by passing the requisite examination by obtaining 60.72% of marks for the trade of WPN FIT on 4.3.2006 and was employed in that trade till his discharge from service. It further stated that Indian Air Force Trade (Weapon Fitter) has been recognized as Diploma in Mechanical Engineering for recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the Central Government vide AICTE letter dated 10.03.2003. This certificate dated 22.5.2025 was issued by the Directorate of Air Veterans.

The AICTE communication dated 10.3.2003 is produced as Annexure A3. It is a communication issued by the AICTE to the Air Headquarters regarding the approval of various institutions under the Indian Air Force to conduct diploma programmes in Engineering/Technology. It states the various courses and the institutions which are recognized. Under serial No. 4 is the institution by name Mechanical Training Institute, Air Force Station, Tambaram, Chennai and the course of Weapon Fitter is referred to as a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering.

The Directorate of Air Veterans in their reply statement had specifically affirmed that the applicant had undergone a study of 3 years diploma course in the said institution. Annexure A4 is a communication dated 12.11.2018 issued by the Air Headquarters regarding the issuance of diploma certificate to technical tradesmen. Approval was accorded for issue of diploma certificate/NAC/NTC equivalent certificate by DAV (Directorate of Air Veterans) to airmen of technical trades enrolled prior to 10.3.2003 as per the format specified in the Appendix to the letter. The technical trades Airmen enrolled on or after 10.3.2003 shall be issued with the same diploma certificate having authority of AICTE letter dated 10.3.2003. The enclosed list refers to the trade and the authority competent to issue the certificate.

Relying on the above documents, the learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that Annexure A5 certificate was issued strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued and accordingly it was improper on the side of the RRB to have declined it. It was also contended that several similar certificates issued to other Air Veterans were accepted by other RRB’s and such candidates have been selected. Rejection of exactly similar certificate issued in favour of the applicant, by the present RRB, is discriminatory and hence legally unsustainable. It was also contended that Annexure A15 clarification was issued by the Directorate of Air Veterans to the RRB, Trivandrum specifically stating that the applicant had undergone prescribed training, practical and examination from the Mechanical Training Institute, Air Force Station, Tambaram, Chennai during the period from 28.6.2005 to 18.9.2009 including on job training at Ops Unit which is a three years training programme. It was ignored by the RRBs.

To substantiate the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that similar certificates submitted by various other Air Veterans were accepted by various other RRBs, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on Annexure A17 reply obtained from the Railway Recruitment Board, Kolkata in reply to an RTI application submitted by a candidate. One of the question asked was regarding the number of servicemen selected with diploma certificate issued by the DAV in CEN 3/2024 and CEN 3/2018. In reply to it, it was stated that 27 ex-servicemen were recommended with service diploma certificate issued by Indian Air force and 60 ex-servicemen were recommended with service diploma certificate issued by Indian Air force. Relying on it, the applicant contended that the similar certificates were accepted by the RRBs for CEN 3/2024 and CEN 3/2018 and rejecting the similar certificate submitted by the applicant by present RRB was discriminatory and hence unsustainable.

To further marshal the above contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on Annexure A9, an offer of appointment issued from the office of Chief Workshops Manager dated 3.2.2026 to one Prabhu K. Thomas. It was contended that the said candidate had produced Annexure A16, exactly similar certificate which was accepted by the Southern Railway.

However, the learned counsel for the Railways vehemently opposed the above contention on the premise that the certificate issued to the applicant apparently showed several doubtful facts and hence not reliable. It was stated that the documents produced by the applicant himself, showed inherent factual mistakes. It was further contended that the contention that similarly situated certificates have been accepted cannot be a valid ground, since case of each person will have to be considered independently on its merits.

Annexure A2 is the discharge certificate issued to the applicant herein. It shows his service particulars. Regarding the trade in which he had served, it is stated that he had served as Weapon Fitter. The civil educational qualification at the time of his joining service was BSc. Sub clause (b) of clause 17 of Annexure A2 in Part-V, specifically states that he had not acquired any certificate during his service. This contradicts, according to the learned Standing Counsel with Annexure A5, which states that he had obtained a diploma in Mechanical Engineering. It was also pointed out that the Annexure A5 shows that he had obtained the certificate on 4.3.2006 whereas he has joined the service only on 28.6.2005. Hence, even by Annexure A5 applicant had not completed the 3 years course. This entry, is further contrary to the clarification issued by the DAV as Annexure A15 which states that the applicant had undergone the training from 28.6.2005 to 18.9.2009. Definitely there are contradictions in the entries in Annexures A2 and A5.

There is yet another reason as to why the case of the applicant could not be considered by the RRB. The certificates were issued by DAV based on Annexure A3 letter of approval dated 10.3.2003 issued by the AICTE. The said letter stated that the DAV was authorized to issue diploma certificates for a period from 5 years with effect from the academic year 2002-2003. It means that the present certificate which was issued after the said period of 5 years cannot be accepted. The reply statement of the DAV itself shows that the proposal for extending the period was under consideration of the AFO (Air Force Order). In the light of above, RRB cannot be found fault with, for not accepting Annexure A5.

It is true that there are doubts in relation to certain entries in Annexure A5, when compared with other available documents. However, we feel that the entire dispute should be set at rest on the basis of Annexure A15 communication issued by the DAV to the RRB wherein the entire details of his course is specifically stated and the reply statement filed by the 3^rd respondent. In Annexure A15 it is specifically stated that the applicant had undergone and successfully completed the prescribed training, practical and examination from Mechanical Training Institute, Air Force Station, Tambaram, Chennai from 28.5.2005 to 18.9.2009. In the light of Annexure A15 the doubts regarding the entries in Annexure A5 should normally pale into insignificance. Further, in the reply statement of 3^rd respondent they have specifically affirmed that the applicant had undergone 3 years diploma course in Air Force Station, Tambaram. Details of such course are also disclosed. It further stated that the inclusion of name of institution in the diploma certificate is under revision and it will be incorporated on approval of Air Force order.

It is also on record that exactly similar certificates of respondent No. 3 were accepted by various RRBs as evident from Annexure A9, in the case of Prabhu K. Thomas and also evident from the RRB reply. When similar certificates are accepted by various RRB’s, a different treatment to applicant will amount to breach of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

Having considered this, we are inclined to direct the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the case of the applicant in the light of Annexure A15 and pass appropriate orders accepting the above certificate. If the applicant is otherwise eligible, he shall be accordingly, appointed in accordance with the rank at Trivandrum or any other suitable place in the Division. The interim order will continue till appropriate orders passed. There will be a further direction to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Before parting, we would advise the 3^rd respondent to ensure that in future, error free certificates are issued to veterans.

The Original Application stands disposed of as above. No order as to costs.