(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:15)

(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:5)

(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)

(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)tititi(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)

(cid:17)(cid:31) !(cid:3)"#(cid:3)(cid:17)!$%&%"’((cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:23))(cid:20)(cid:24))(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:24)*

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Petitioners Versus CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH AND ANR ...Respondents (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:29)((cid:3) (cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)+(cid:16),(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:11))(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:10)-(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)-(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3)-(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)-(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:1)

(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)+(cid:16),(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:11))(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:10)-(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:3).(cid:1)/(cid:15)-(cid:3)-(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:1)

Present: Mr. Indresh Goel, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

Ms. Rama and Ms. Shriya, Advocates for Mr. Snehdip Oberoy, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

*****

(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)-(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3)-(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)-(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:3)0(cid:3)(cid:14))(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15),(cid:30)(cid:3)

(cid:8)(cid:29)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)1(cid:22)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:24)*

The present application has been filed for recalling of order dated 13.01.2026 by which the writ petition was dismissed for non3 prosecution.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, order dated 13.01.2026 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status.

On joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken on board for consideration.

CM stands disposed of.

(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:24)tititi(cid:22)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:26)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 30.05.2018 (Annexure P31) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), by which, two3year diploma possessed by respondent No.2 in Foundry Technology has been directed to be treated as an equivalent qualification to a three3year diploma in a combination of sub3stream of basic streams of Mechanical awarded by the State Technical Education Board and a further direction has been issued to consider respondent No.2 as eligible for the post of Junior Engineer in Railways.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the post was advertised in the year 2014 and the selection process stood concluded in the year 2016 and even after the passing of the impugned orderdated 30.05.2018 by the Tribunal, holding respondent No.2 to be eligible, he has not come forward, especially when there was no interim order in the present writ petition despite the fact that present petition is pending for the last 8 years.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the two3year diploma possessed by respondent No.2 is to be treated as equivalent to a three3year diploma, then also, the same is only permissible in case an equivalent qualification has been recognized as a valid qualification to seek eligibility and merely, possession of equivalent qualification cannot be brought into operation unless specifically allowed, either under the rules or under the advertisement and in the present case, no such equivalent qualification has been prescribed so as to consider t