Union Of India And Ors vs Ashok Kumar Poddar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:-

“That the present writ application is being filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction, for quashing the judgment and order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the learned Central Adminstrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna

(hereinafter referred as CAT) in O.A. NO.325 of 2014 whereby the learned CAT has allowed the O.A. No. 325 of 2014 whereby the learned CAT

has directed the respondents to reconsider the case of applicant as a special case on the basis of the subsequently acquired qualification of B.Com and

to pass an appropriate order within two months from the production of copy of the impugned order.â€​

Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that respondent was appointed as Junior Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-w.e.f. 23.12.1995 and

subsequently he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk w.e.f. 30.04.1998.

While respondent was working as Senior Clerk a notification was issued by the department for selection to the post of Data Entry Operator in the pay

scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-which was to be filled up from the candidates possessing graduation degree and respondent applied for it and was declared

successful in the aptitude test and was selected and thereafter posted in E.D.P. Centre, Katihar w.e.f 23.03.2000. After serving 8 years on said post

on the basis of complaint that respondent had submitted unrecognised graduate certificate and an enquiry was conducted and it was found that degree

of Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar, Jharkhand, was not equivalent to degree of graduation required for the post of Data Entry

Operator.

Show cause was issued to him and his reply was not found to be satisfactory and order of his repatriation to his parent department as Senior Clerk

was issued on 16.10.2019.

Against said order respondent filed O.A. No. 383 of 2010 which was disposed of on 16.10.2009 directing the railway authorities to reconsider order of

repatriation dated 16.10.2009 as respondent had subsequently acquired B.com degree from a recognized university and thereafter order dated

14.02.2014 was passed justifying the repatriation against which present O.A. was filed.

The authorities have not assigned any reason and have not considered the notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative

Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, by which the degree of Sahitya Alankar has been held to be equivalent to graduation. There is no misrepresentation or

concealment made by the respondent while applying for the post of Data Entry Operator and had submitted the Sahitya Alankar degree to be graduate

degree and railway authorities accepted said degree to be equivalent to graduation degree and found him eligible and permitted him to appear in the

Aptitude Test in which he was declared successful, as such, after respondent being appointed and promoted on said post they cannot subsequently

withdraw said promotion on the ground that Sahitya Alankar is not equivalent to graduate. Sahitya Alankar degree from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar,

has been recognized by the State Government to be equivalent to graduate degree by notification issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms

Department vide Memo No.541 dated 11.01.1991, as such, railways cannot take a plea that same is not equivalent to graduation degree after

respondent having worked for 8 years on said post. Certificate submitted by respondent was not a fake or forged certificate but was issued by a

recognised educational institution certificate of which was accepted by State Govt. to be equivalent to graduation at relevant time. Railways have

brought nothing on record to establish that said certificate were not recognized by Railways.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court does not find any infirmity or error in the

order passed by the Tribunal requiring any interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction, accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.