AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri M.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
“(i)issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter/ order dated 21/22.06.2016 issued by the respondents no. 3.
(ii)issue nature order an of respondent or direction in the mandamus directing concerned the to authorities appoint the applicant finally on the post of Carriage Cleaner for which the applicant has been selected within specific period as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, so that justice may be done.
(iii)to pass other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv)Award the cast of the original application.
The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are that the applicant had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2013 issued by the respondents for filling up certain vacancies. It is the case of the applicant that he participated in the selection process and successfully cleared all the stages of the he was directed to appear for document verification. According to the applicant, he duly appeared for document verification; however, no further direction was issued to him to join the post against which he had been selected. It is further the case of the applicant that, despite making several representations in this regard, his candidature was ultimately rejected vide communication dated 21/22.06.2016 with the following endorsement: “During document verification before appointment in Firozpur Division, it was noticed that the required 10th class certificate submitted by you, issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, is not from a recognized Board for appointment in Railway.” The applicant has pleaded that he passed the 10th Class examination, namely Adhikari Pariksha, in the year 2008 from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, and that the said qualification was recognized as equivalent to the High School examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh. On the basis of the aforesaid, the applicant has sought issuance of an offer of appointment by treating the qualification possessed by him as having been obtained from a recognized institution.
Per contra, by filing a Counter Affidavit, the respondents have taken the stand that the institution from which the applicant passed the requisite qualification, i.e., the 10th Class examination, was not recognized for the purpose of appointment in the Railways. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the applicant was rightly passed. The respondents have further pleaded that mere issuance of an offer of appointment and calling the applicant for document verification does not confer upon him any indefeasible right to appointment. In paragraph no. 16 of the Counter Affidavit, the respondents have specifically pleaded that Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, is not recognized by the Council of Boards of School Education in India (COBSE), and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the applicant.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant passed the 10th Class Adhikari Pariksha, which is equivalent to the High School examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, in the year 2008. It is submitted that, up to the year 2008, Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, was a recognized institution for conducting the said examination. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents have wrongly rejected the candidature of the applicant. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in Writ-A No. 48208 of 2012, Dhanpal and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others. It is argued that a similar issue was considered by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, wherein it was categorically held that the Adhikari Pariksha certificate issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, up to the year 2008, is valid. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents be directed to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 02.03.2022 passed by this Bench in OA No. 938 of 2014, Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Union of India and Others.
Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the averments made in the Counter Affidavit, submitted that the institution from which the applicant obtained his 10th Class qualification is not recognized by the Council of Boards of School Education in India (COBSE), New Delhi. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the letter dated 08.10.2013 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that, on several occasions, the Railway Recruitment Cell has issued lists of institutions and Boards recognized by the Council of Boards of School Education in India (COBSE), New Delhi, and the institution from which the applicant obtained his qualification does not find mention therein. In support of the said contention, learned counsel has also referred to the communication issued from the office of the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, New Delhi. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the candidature of the applicant was rightly rejected and, therefore, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record carefully.
Before discussing the submission raises across the BAR, it will be useful to quote the relevant para of the judgment dated 9.10.2013 passed by Hon’ble Allahabad HIgh Court in Writ A No. 48208/2012 (Dhanpal and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors). The same is as under:-
53.In the instant case, the revocation of the Entry No.30 from Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV was made in deference to the order of this court in Indrawati Devi's case (supra). From the document enclosed with the compilation, as has been noticed by us in paragraph 27 herein above, it does not appear that the Board carried out any independent exercise to ascertain that Gurukul, as an institution imparting education up to the secondary level, for which it had been accorded recognition, never existed. No material has been brought on record to suggest that Gurukul was a bogus or a fictitious institution. Thus, in view of the law noticed herein above, providing retrospectivity to the amendment in the Regulations would be completely unjustified inasmuch as the equivalence earlier accorded to "Adhikari Pariksha", up to the year 2008, by the U.P. Board, in exercise of its power under section 15 read with section 7 of the Act, 1921, has conferred rights of enduring character on persons who pursued the course and obtained such certificates, and such right having vested in them cannot be extinguished by mere deletion of Entry No.30 from Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921, particularly, in absence of any statutory intendment to make it applicable from retrospective effect. Providing retrospectivity to such an amendment would play havoc with the life and career of innumerable persons who, on the strength of Adhikari Pariksha certificate, have pursued and obtained higher qualifications.
54.In view of the discussion made above, we answer the reference thus:
(a)Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008 i.e. till it was recognized by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject, and passed in one year, is a valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by the UGC.
(b)The decision of the division bench in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 dated 13.10.2011 (Indrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others), which holds that "Adhikari Pariksha" certificate obtained from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura cannot be held to be a valid degree, does not lay down the correct law.
A similar issue also came up for consideration before this Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi (supra), wherein the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Railway Board with the following observations:-
6.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents on record. We have already recorded our observation on the last date of effective hearing, which have been reproduced above. It is not a disputed that the applicant had got selected by way of his successfully competing in the selection process. But for the question on the identity and recognization of the Board of Education from which he has passed his matriculation, he would have been appointed with effect from the date when other selected candidates of the year 2010 were appointed. We have also noted that the respondents relied purely upon the certification of the COBSE for denying the claim of the applicant and as recorded above we are not convinced that only COBSE should have been relied upon as a genuine official authority to certify the recognization of a particular Board. Moreover, the respondents have since done away with the requirement of COBSE certification for recogniztion of a particular Board. Therefore, there is no ground before the respondents to deny the applicant an appointment to Group ‘D’ post pursuant to his unquestioned selection against an advertised vacancy.
7.Accordingly, this OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.06.2014 is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue appointment to the applicant against Group ‘D’ post forthwith. However, we would not give any direction with respect to any of the consequential benefits as there was no malafie on the part of the respondents in denial of such an appointment, and they have taken a decision on account of a bonafide belief that the certificate of the applicant was not recognised. The respondents are further directed that appointment to a Group ‘D’ post in favour of the applicant should be given within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order. It is made clear that the respondents will not be allowed to take shelter of an excuse that no vacant post of Group ‘D’ is available. If required, they shall create a supernumerary post to give effect to this order.
Whatever documents have been supplied and relied upon by the respondents do not relate to the relevant period, i.e., the year 2008. The letter dated 14.08.2026 issued by the Council of Boards of School Education in India, New Delhi (COBSE), also does not mention whether Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, was recognized up to the year 2008 for conducting the Adhikari Pariksha, which is claimed to be equivalent to the 10th Class/High School examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh. A similar position emerges from the letter dated 08.10.2013 issued by the Railway Board, which also does not specifically clarify whether Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, was recognized up to the year 2008 for conducting the aforesaid Adhikari Pariksha or not.
Since the same issue came up for consideration before the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case referred to hereinabove, and the Hon’ble High Court has categorically held that the Adhikari Pariksha certificate issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008, is valid and that the said qualification was recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, as equivalent to the High School examination, the impugned order passed by the respondents, in the face of such a clear pronouncement of law on the issue, cannot be sustained. A similar view has also been taken by this Bench in the case of Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi (supra).
In the present case, the candidature of the applicant was rejected at the stage of document verification solely on the ground that the requisite qualification had been obtained from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, which was alleged not to be a recognized Board. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the decision of this Bench referred to above, such rejection of the candidature of the applicant cannot be held to be legally sustainable. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the Original Application deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, noticed that the recruitment in question pertains to the advertisement issued in the year 2013, the impugned order was passed in the year 2016 and the present Original Application was instituted in the year 2017. It is quite possible that all the posts advertised pursuant to the said recruitment may have been filled up during the intervening period. Nevertheless, the applicant, whose candidature has been found to have been illegally rejected, cannot be left remediless merely on account of the passage of time. Accordingly, the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter and issue the applicant an offer of appointment to the post for which he was selected, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event that all the vacancies pertaining to the relevant advertisement have already been filled up, the applicant shall be considered for adjustment against an existing suitable vacancy, subject to his eligibility and otherwise being found fit for appointment. The applicant shall also be entitled to seniority vis-à-vis the candidates selected pursuant to the same recruitment, in accordance with his merit position; however, he shall not be entitled to any back wages or monetary benefits for the period during which he did not actually work.
No order as to costs. All associates MAs also stand disposed of.