Narinder Singh vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & Anr.

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to allow him to join/adjust as Incharge Lecturer in Environmental Science in terms of Government Order No. 325-Edu of 2019 dated 16.10.2019, on the same basis as similarly situated persons, particularly Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani, and to grant him consequential benefits.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{3. The applicant is working as a Teacher in Government Middle School,} Pallanwala, Zone Khour, District Jammu and was regularized as a General Line Teacher on 24.09.2008 after rendering service as a Rehbar-e-Taleem Teacher. He possesses a Post Graduate Degree from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), namely M.Sc. in Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Science.

The Government, vide Order No. 325-Edu of 2019 dated 16.10.2019, accorded sanction to the temporary placement of various Post Graduate Masters/Teachers as Incharge Lecturers, in their own pay and grade, in the discipline of Environmental Science. Significantly, the applicant’s name was also included in the said order at Serial No. 30.

However, at the stage of verification of documents, the applicant was not cleared for adjustment as Incharge Lecturer on the ground that the nomenclature of his qualification was M.Sc. (Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Science). Consequently, while other persons covered by the order were permitted to join as Incharge Lecturers, the applicant was denied such placement.

The principal case set up by the applicant is that one Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani had already been granted promotion as Lecturer in Environmental Science on the basis of a Master’s Degree obtained from the very same Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, having the very same nomenclature, i.e., M.Sc. (Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Science). The applicant accordingly represented before the respondents seeking identical treatment and placed the relevant record concerning the promotion of Mr. Wani before the authorities.

The applicant’s representation was considered by respondent No. 2 and the matter was forwarded to respondent No. 1 on 08.02.2020 for necessary instructions regarding equivalence of his degree with the degrees possessed by other persons who had been permitted to join as Incharge Lecturers in Environmental Science. However, according to the pleadings, no final decision was taken on the applicant’s claim.

The respondents, while opposing the Original Application, have pleaded that under the applicable Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 2010, notified vide SRO 481 dated 30.12.2010, the prescribed qualification for promotion as Lecturer in Environmental Science is M.Sc. Environmental Science. According to them, though the degree possessed by the applicant is recognized, its equivalence with the prescribed M.Sc. Environmental Science has not been established.

The respondents have further stated that the matter regarding equivalence has been referred to the Higher Education Department for a formal determination and that, until such determination is made, the applicant’s eligibility for promotion/placement cannot be conclusively established.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings and material available on record.

The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The applicant does not seek relaxation of the prescribed qualification. His specific case is founded upon parity of treatment. He asserts that another employee, namely Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani, possessing the same Post Graduate Degree with the same nomenclature from the same University, has already been promoted as Lecturer in Environmental Science, whereas the applicant has been denied corresponding treatment solely on the ground that the nomenclature of his degree is not M.Sc. Environmental Science.

This aspect assumes considerable significance. The applicant specifically pleaded that Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani had obtained M.Sc. (Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Science) from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur and had nevertheless been promoted as Lecturer in Environmental Science. The applicant also placed the relevant record concerning Mr. Wani’s promotion before the respondents along with his representation.

What is equally significant is that the respondents, in their written statement, have not specifically controverted this material assertion by stating that Mr. Wani possessed a different qualification, was governed by different rules, or was otherwise distinguishable from the applicant. Their defence is essentially confined to the plea that the applicant’s degree requires determination of equivalence with M.Sc. Environmental Science.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{14. Once the State has itself extended the benefit of promotion/placement} in Environmental Science to an employee possessing the same qualification from the same University, it cannot ordinarily adopt a different yardstick while considering another identically situated employee. If there exists any material distinction between the applicant and Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani, it was incumbent upon the respondents to disclose and establish such distinction. No such distinguishing feature has been brought out in the written statement placed before us.

Moreover, the applicant’s case stands on an additional footing. His name was not merely under consideration for placement; rather, it actually figured at Serial No. 30 in Government Order No. 325-Edu of 2019 dated 16.10.2019 whereby temporary placement of Post Graduate Masters/Teachers as Incharge Lecturers in Environmental Science was sanctioned. His placement was withheld subsequently during verification on account of the nomenclature of his degree.

The respondents cannot simultaneously contend that the matter of equivalence is still awaiting a formal determination from the Higher Education Department and, at the same time, conclusively deny the applicant’s placement on the premise that his degree “cannot be considered equivalent.” Their own pleadings disclose that the matter was referred to the Higher Education Department precisely for a clear and formal determination regarding equivalence.

There is yet another relevant circumstance. The applicant has pleaded that qualifications bearing different nomenclature, including Master’s Degree in Ecology and Environment obtained from Sikkim Manipal University, were treated as equivalent to Master’s Degree in Environmental Science pursuant to orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court, and consequential promotions were granted by the respondents. Thus, mere difference in nomenclature cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis to deny consideration when equivalence has otherwise been recognized in comparable circumstances.

It is a settled principle of administrative law that similarly situated employees are required to be treated alike. The State cannot accord favourable treatment to one employee and deny the same treatment to another employee possessing the same material qualifications and standing on the same footing, unless there exists a rational and legally sustainable distinction between the two. Such differential treatment would offend the mandate of equality embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

In the present case, no cogent justification has been furnished as to why Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani could be granted the benefit on the strength of M.Sc. (Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Science) from Guru Ghasidas University, while the applicant, possessing the same qualification from the same University and whose name already figured in Government Order dated 16.10.2019, should be denied the corresponding benefit.

The respondents cannot be permitted to perpetuate discriminatory treatment by keeping the applicant’s case pending indefinitely under the guise of obtaining clarification regarding equivalence, particularly when their own previous action in the case of a similarly qualified employee is specifically relied upon and has not been shown to be legally distinguishable.

We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the action of the Central Administrative Tribunal^{respondents in denying the applicant the benefit extended to a} similarly situated person cannot be sustained. The applicant is entitled to parity of treatment, subject, of course, to verification that the qualification possessed by Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani and relied upon by the applicant is indeed identical in nomenclature, University and relevant academic particulars and that his promotion has not subsequently been withdrawn or declared contrary to the applicable rules.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider and extend to the applicant the same treatment as was extended to Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani, if upon verification it is found that Mr. Wani was promoted/placed as Lecturer in Environmental Science on the basis of the same M.Sc. (Forestry, Wildlife and Environmental Science) degree obtained from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur and that such benefit continues to hold the field.

Upon such verification, the respondents shall allow the applicant the benefit of placement as Incharge Lecturer in Environmental Science in terms of Government Order No. 325-Edu of 2019 dated 16.10.2019, from the date the similarly situated persons covered by the said order were given such placement. The applicant shall be accorded notional seniority/placement and consequential service benefits from the said date.

As the placement contemplated under Government Order dated 16.10.2019 was stated to be in the employee’s own pay and grade, the question of monetary benefits shall be regulated strictly in accordance with the terms of the said order and the applicable rules. Any consequential monetary benefit that becomes legally admissible upon such placement shall be worked out and released accordingly.

The entire exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the respondents seek to distinguish the applicant’s case from that of Mr. Ifthikar Rashid Wani, they shall be required to do so by passing a reasoned and speaking order identifying the specific factual or legal distinction, and the benefit shall not be denied merely on the ground of difference in nomenclature already common to both qualifications.

The Original Application stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.