IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 870 of 2025 ==========================================================

KEYURKUMAR S/O ASHOKKUMAR MAJITHIA Versus GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MAGANBHAI B BUNDELIYA(8328) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 16/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Maganbhai B.

Bundeliya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Harsheel D.Shukla for the respondents.

2.By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in O.A. No.507/2016 whereby the petition was dismissed.

3.Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the Employment Notice No.CEN/1/2014 dated 18.01.2014 issued by respondent no.2- Railway Recruitment Board for recruitment on various posts, the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP).

4.When the petitioner qualified the written test, petitioner was directed to appear for aptitude test to be held on 11.03.2015 which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 02.02.2015. The petitioner successfully qualified/cleared the said aptitude test and was asked to remain present on 27.10.2015 for verification of the documents and accordingly, the petitioner appeared before respondent no.2 and his documents were verified by the respondents.

5.Thereafter vide letter dated 26.05.2016, the respondents have informed the petitioner that on scrutiny and verification of the documents of the petitioner, they found discrepancy to the effect that the petitioner had passed Diploma-Electrical through Distance Learning Mode and as per existing instructions issued by the Railway Board, education qualification of Diploma-Electrical Engineering acquired through Distance Learning Mode is not acceptable.

6.Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 26.05.2016, the petitioner has preferred OA No.507/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal after hearing both the sides vide impugned order dated 24.09.2024 dismissed the petition of the petitioner.

7.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

8.Learned advocate Mr. Maganbhai B. Bundeliya appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have rejected the candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has obtained the requisite Diploma in Electronic Engineering through Open and Distance Learning mode. It was submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the respondents have never informed the petitioner that Diploma/Degree in Engineering obtained through Distance Learning Mode is not recognised.

9.It was submitted that the Tribunal has after considering the submissions of the petitioner has arrived at finding of fact that the respondent authorities have not rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of unrecognised institute but only on the ground that he had obtained Diploma through Distance Learning Mode.

10. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bharathidasan University and Another v. All-India Council For Technical Education and others reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 676 and pointed out that the Tribunal has distinguished the facts of the present petition contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it is held as under:

“15. To put it in a nutshell a reading of Section 10 of AICTE Act will make it clear that whenever the Act omits to cover a 'University', the same has been specifically provided in the