Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9578
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Om Prakash VII, J, Mr. Mohan Pyare, A
Bhushan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Chairman Ministry of Railways – Respondent
Original Application No. 1436 of 2024
For the Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar
For the Respondents: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
The court emphasized the significance of recognized educational qualifications for public employment, upholding the legitimacy of re-evaluating candidates' eligibility post-selection.
Headnote:(A) University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Section 3 - The impugned order rejecting an application for appointment based on non-recognition of a diploma - Justifiable grounds for withholding the appointment following due process of law. (Paras 9, 12, 14)
(B) The applicant successfully passed all stages of the selection process yet was dismissed on the grounds of educational qualification issues relating to recognition by competent authorities. (Paras 11, 13)
(C) Legal principles governing employment rights stipulate that while candidates have no definitive right to employment, they expect fair consideration based on achieved merit. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant secured an offer for a junior engineer position but faced rejection due to the non-recognition of his diploma from a deemed university.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal upheld the rejection decision, citing valid grounds based on the applicant's academic qualification.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of withholding the appointment due to educational qualifications not meeting the stipulated criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the applicant, despite passing the selection process, could not claim eligibility if his educational qualifications were invalid.
Result: The OA is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's claim for appointment based on educational qualifications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legitimacy of diploma recognition and selection process. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. judicial findings on the validity of the diploma and due process. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. legal principles regarding the selection and merit-based employment. (Para 11) |
| 5. final decision on the dismissal of the application. (Para 14) |
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
“i. To issue a suitable order / direction quashing and set aside the order impugned dated 15.10.2024 passed by respondent no 4 (Annexure No. A-1) to the OA with Compilation No I.
ii. To issue a suitable order / direction, directing the respondents authorities to issue of formal an appointment letter to the applicant in view of the offer of appointment letter dated 07.07.2017 to the selected post of Junior Engineer / Mechanical in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- within a stipulated period of time as specified by this Hon’ble tribunal.
iii. To issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To award the cost of the application to the applicant.”
3. A compendium of the facts as have been narrated in the present original application is thatthe applicant possessed the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He passed the aforesaid Diploma from Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University Pratap Nagar, Udainagar in the year 2010. It has been contended in the OA that Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University Pratap Nagar, Udainagar was declared as deemed to be University by the Central Government on the advice of the U.G.C. under section 3 of UGC Act, 1956 and notified as such in the official Gazette on 12th January 1987. An advertisement was issued by the Railway Recruitment Board in the various newspapers for the post of Junior Engineer Group Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- and SSE Group –Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-. Applicant applied for the post of Junior Engineer and thereafter call letter was issued in favour of the applicant for appearing in the written examination. Applicant appeared in the written examination test held on 14.12.2014 in which he was succeeded. Thereafter, a call letter for interview and document verification has been issued to the applicant. Pursuant to call letter, applicant appeared in the interview in which he qualified. Result was declared but the name of applicant was not mentioned in the list of final result. Being aggrieved, applicant approached before the respondent NO.4 and filed an application dated 06.03.2017 with regard to declaring his result. When no action was taken by the respondents on the application of the applicant dated 06.03.2017 then he filed another application dated 20.03.2017 with the same prayer. After verification of certificates and other academic records, the result of applicant has been declared by the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 10.04.2017, in which he was selected for the aforesaid post under unreserved category. Thereafter respondent No. 5 has issued an offer of appointment to the applicant on the post of Junior Engineer vide letter dated 07.07.2017. It has been contended by the applicant that pursuant to the offer of appointment, he appeared before the respondent No.5 and submitted all the requisite documents for verification and joining of his service but respondents’ authority has not issued the appointment letter in his favour and not permitted him to join his service. In this regard, a representation was submitted by the applicant to which initially there was no any reply at the end of the respondents. Subsequently, the applicant approached before the Tribunal vide OA No. 166 of 2019 which was disp
