Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3917
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajveer Singh Verma, J, Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A
Purna Chandra Kahili – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./051/00446/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Shri Abhay Kumar Behera, Sr. Advocate, Shri Sanchay Srivastava
For the Respondents:Shri S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate, Shri Maurya Vijay Chandra
The court ruled that a degree in Civil Engineering was not a mandatory requirement for promotion to Manager (Technical) for regular employees of NHAI, allowing for alternative qualifications.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Promotion and qualifications for Manager (Technical) post - The applicant, a D.G.M. (Tech) in NHAI, challenged the reversion to Technical Assistant based on invalidation of his B.Tech degree. The court found that the Recruitment Rules did not mandate a degree for promotion to Manager (Technical) for regular employees, and the Supreme Court's ruling in a related case did not apply. The court reinstated the applicant's position with all consequential benefits. (Paras 47 and 48)
(B) Interpretation of Recruitment Rules - The court emphasized that the presence of 'or' in the eligibility criteria allowed for multiple interpretations, which were not adequately considered by the respondents, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 33 and 41)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's appointment and qualifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. judgment affecting applicant's qualifications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondents' arguments regarding the applicant's degree. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. committee's findings and interpretations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. applicant's rebuttals and claims. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. court's observations on natural justice. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. interpretation of recruitment rules. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. court's conclusion on educational requirements. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 9. final decision regarding applicant's case. (Para 47) |
| 10. order of the tribunal. (Para 48) |
ORDER
PER:RAJVEER SINGH VERMA, MEMBER[JUDICIAL]
1. Applicant has filed present OA under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
“(i) Call for the records of the case.
(ii) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27/06/2024 at Annexure A-1.
(iii) Direct the Respondents to give all consequential benefits to the applicant.
(iv) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal thinks fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Direct the Respondents to pay the cost of litigation to the applicant.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant was appointed as Draftsman in NHAI on 25.06.1997, post redesignated as Technical Assistant. In year 2003 applicant after taking permission from NHAI for doing a course in Diploma in Civil Engineering and completed diploma course. In year 2008 applicant joined B.Tech Course in Civil Engineering at Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University and at the time of admission degree course was recognized course and completed in year 2011.
3. NHAI on August 2011 issued public notice on deputation basis for appointment as Manager (Technical). Vide office order dated 27.02.2015 applicant was promoted as Manager (Technical), Level-11 w.e.f. 18.05.2012 and posted in year 2016 at Jharkhand Project Implementation Unit at Jamshedpur as Manager (Technical) Level-12 post as per Recruitment Rules, 1996 w.e.f. 18.05.2016.
4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rabi SankarPatro&Ors (Civil Appeal No. 17869/2017) held B.Tech qualification from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University not valid degree as the same was not as per norms of AICTE. Direction was issued to provide 2 chances to qualify in a test conducted by AICTE for those who had taken admission up to 2005 academic session. Applicant had taken admission in academic session 2008 and was not given any chance to qualify in any test. NHAI had constituted committee to take steps to implement Hon’ble Apex Court judgment and issued letter to submit copy of degree. Case of applicant is that for promotion from Technical Assistant to higher grades, degree is not prescribed qualification. There was difference of opinion among members of the committee whether B.Tech degree required for promotion form Technical Assistant to higher posts in NHAI. Majority view of the members for committee is that applicant is affected by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. Respondents reverted applicant on 01.03.2021 to post of Technical Assistant vide order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure-A-17) and promotion as Assistant Manager [Tech./Manager (Tech.)] on basis of degree recalled. Applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 238/2021 at Circuit Bench Ranchi of this Tribunal and Division Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the OA on 18.02.2022.
6. Order dated 18.02.2022 passed in OA No. 238/2021 (Circuit Bench Ranchi, Patna Bench) was set-aside by Hon’ble High Court Jharkhand Ranchi on 08.09.2022 directing respondents to take fresh decision. Respondents issued notices on 17.07.2023 and considering reply dated 04.08.2023 impugned order 27.06.2024 has been passed, again reverting to the post of Technical Assistant without considering column-8 of Recruitment Rules for Manager (Tec
