The prerogative of the employer to fix the qualification criteria and the binding nature of the eligibility criteria specified in the original notification.

1. Seeking to review the order dated 21.08.2014 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12532 of 2013, the present application has been filed by the applicants, who are the petitioners therein.

2. Before going into the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it is appropriate to place on record the facts governing the case.

2.1 The notification dated 30.12.2011 was issued to fill up 253 vacancies of Office Superintendent and the applicants submitted their applications in pursuant to the said notification. Para 2 of the notification deals with the eligibility criteria, of which paras 2.1 and 2.2 are relevant and thus, they are reproduced hereunder.

"2.0 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

2.1 Serving ministerial staff of all departments (except Accounts & RPF) having the service detailed below and possessing qualification of graduation, the degree either under 11+1+3 years stream or under 10+2+3 years stream from a recognized University.

2.2. Degree obtained by Under Graduate or Post Graduate directly from Open University or other such institutions without 11+1+3 or 10+2+3 stream will not be eligible. Such applications will be summarily rejected."

2.2. The applicants have admittedly completed only 8th and 10th Standards respectively before enrolling their names to the first year Degree course through Open University. Thus, they were found not eligible to be considered for the post of Office Superintendent as per the notification aforesaid. The rejection order made was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 270 of 2012.

2.3. The applicants were permitted to write the examinations in pursuant to the interim order obtained on 09.03.2012 in O.A. No. 270 of 2012. The first applicant did not obtain the requisite percentage of 60% marks in the written examination held. The Tribunal, thereafter, dismissed the original application on 22.11.2012. Challenging the same, the applicants herein have filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 12532 of 2013 before this Court.

2.4. After the orders were passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 270 of 2012, on 08.02.2013, Personnel Branch of Southern Railway sent a letter to the Secretary (E), Railway Board, New Delhi, seeking clarification regarding the degree obtained from the open Universities without undergoing 10+2+3 or 11+1+3 and under graduate degree without prosecuting 10+2 or 11+1. By way of reply, a communication dated 30.10.2013 was sent by the Railway Board stating that the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC) should be taken into consideration. Another letter dated 18.11.2013 was addressed by the Railway Board to the General Manager (P) on the same lines subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 30.10.2013.

2.5. Yet another letter was sent by the Personnel Branch, Southern Railway to the Railway Board dated 16.12.2013 seeking further clarification on the two letters aforesaid dated 30.10.2013 and 18.11.2013. A reply was given on 27.01.2014 stating that the earlier letters dated 30.10.2013 and 18.11.2013 may be kept in abeyance as further clarification was sought for from the University Grants Commission. It is the case of the respondents that the clarifications dated 30.10.2013 and 18.11.2013 were issued without considering the decision rendered by the Apex Court in N. Ramesh vs. Sibi Mada Gabriel and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 590.

2.6. Thereafter, the University Grants Commission has addressed a letter to the respondents stating that there has been another amendment made in the Regulations 1985.

2.7. A letter dated 27.1.2014 was sent by the Railway Board to the General Manager (P), Southern Railway, Chennai, that the letter dated 18.11.2013 kept in abeyance may be treated as operational. This Court, by an order dated 26.02.2014, has directed the University Grants Commission to file a counter affidavit to explain their stand. Thereafter, another counter affidavit has been filed. The first counter affidavit was