M. Saravanan v. Union Of India

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBNUNAL MADRAS BENCH Tuesday the 27th day of November Two Thousand Twelve P R E S E N T The Hon'ble Mr.B.Venkateswara Rao Judicial Member The Hon'ble Mrs.O.P.Sosamma, Administrative Member O.A.Nos.1416 and 1539/2010 1.M.Saravanan Applicant in OA No.1416/2010 2.T.Jaisankar Applicant in OA No.1539/2010 1.Union of India rep. by the General Manager Engine Factory Avadi Chennai 600 054. 2.G.Maheshkumar Fitter Token No.24218 Permanent No.735 OHL Section Engine Factory Avadi Chennai 600 054. Respondents in both OAs 3.AICTE Southern Regional Office Shastri Bhavan 26,Haddows Road Chennai 4.Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Hansmukh Bhavan IME behind CIDCO Office Near Hiranandani Park Plot No.24 Sec-4 Kharghar Navi Mumbai 421 0210. Respondents in OA 1416/10 Counsel for the applicants Mr.Rajesh Kumar Counsel for the respondents Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan (R-1) Mr.R.Priyakumar(R-2) (Order pronounced by Hon'ble Mrs.O.P.Sosamma, Administrative Member) The applicants in both these OAs are seeking selection to the post of Charge man (T&M) on the basis of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 28/29th August, 2010 by challenging the selection of the second respondent to the post on the ground that he does not satisfy the prescribed educational qualification as the diploma obtained by him is not from an institution approved by All India Council for Technical Education.

2. The first respondent published a notification on 7.4.2010 for filling up the vacancies in the post of Charge man (T&M) through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Seven posts of Charge man (UR- 5 and ST-2) were notified. The eligibility conditions for candidates appearing for the examination as mentioned in the notification is as follows: a. The candidates must possess the educational qualification laid down in SRO 13E as amended by SRO 191 of 28.11.1994 and SRO 66 dated 27.5.2003 (Annexure-B) b. For the post of Chargeman (T/Mech) a candidate must possess three years diploma or equivalent qualification certificate in respective field duly affiliated by AICTU and two years experience in the grade.

c) A candidate possessing the required qualification in terms of these SROs from an institute recognised by Govt. of India are also eligible. A candidate must possess the required educational qualification on the last date of receipt of application may also apply. But he must produce the pass certificate/document on or before the date of written examination for selection.

3. The applicants in both these OAs passed the Limited Departmental Competitive examination and the applicant in O.A.NO.1416/2010 was placed at Sl.NO.6 and the applicant in O.A.NO.1539 was placed at Sl.No.7. As there were only 5 vacancies candidates upto Sl.No.5 were selected and appointed. The contention of the applicants is that the 5th candidate selected i.e the second respondent in this case is not qualified for appointment to the post as he obtained the diploma certificate through the Distance Education Course of IME Mumbai which is not an Institution in the approved list of AICTE. In support of this contention the applicants cite the letter obtained from the AICTE dated 17.8.2010 informing him that IME Mumbai is not in the approved list of AICTU.

4. The respondents in their reply point out that against 5 UR vacancies only 4 vacancies were filled up initially because the applicant and the respondent No.2 had given representation giving conflicting version regarding the eligibility of the certificate issued by IME Mumbai. The respondents, therefore, sought for clarification from OFB vide letter No.EFA/A/ADMIN/017/LDCE/CM dated 6.10.2010.

5. The OFB in letter No.2982/LDCE/CM(T&NT)/ANG/10 dated 12.11.201- clarified that IME (India) Mumbai has been running Part-I and Part-II of Technician Engineers(T) which is equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from a State Polytechnic since 1988 and that it has also been stated in the notification that the Diploma offered by this Institute will be recognised for employment in Central Govt.

6. The applicant has obtained a letter from the AICTE dated 17.8.2010 under RTI Act which states that IME Mumbai is not under the approved list of AICTE.

7. The respondent has also submitted a copy of letter of AICTE No.F-22-2408/2010 dated 14.9.2010 which states that as per the Gazette Notification dated 24.11.2006 Govt. of India Ministry of HRD the Institution of Mechanical Engineering (IME) offering Technical Engineering course is equivalent to Diploma in engineering offered by the State Board and that approval was given by MHRD in consultation with AICTE and therefore the approval of MHRD holds good.

8. The respondent has also submitted a copy of letter of MHRD dated 24.11.2006 which states as follows The recognition of the courses run by IME, Mumbai may be restored with effect from 16.10.2006. With this recognition IME will run the courses based on new syllabus approved by All India Council for Technical Education ........... 9.This position has been reiterated by the Ordnance Factory Board in its letter No.2982/LDCE/CM(T&NT)/A/NG/10 dated 12.11.2010 in reply to the clarification sought for by the first respondent in letter No.961 dated 29.9.2010 on this issue. The relevant portions of the letter is quoted below: With reference to above, attention is drawn to Govt. of India, Ministry of HRD. Deptt. of Higher Education Notification No.F.23-2/2001-TS-III dt.24.11.2006 which has also been notified in Gazette of India, New Delhi No.50 dated 16th December 22, 2006. It can be seen from the notification that the IME (India) Mumbai has been running Part-I and II of Technician Engineers (T) which is equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from a State polytechnic since 1988. It has also been stated in the notification that the Diploma offered by this Institute will be recognised for employment in Central Govt. The further details are available in the notification itself. It is understood that referred the matter to the AICTE, which in turn advised the factory to refer Gazette notification No .F.23-2/2001-TS-III dated 24.11.2006 of the Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. Thus the position has also been cleared by AICTE that the decision is to be arrived at taking into account the contents of the said Notification as published in the Gazette of India. The relevant portion of the Gazette Notification is reiterated here that the Diploma will be recognised for employment in the Central Govt. The candidature of an applicant is to be considered with reference to the certificate to be produced by him/her within the terms and conditions of this notification.

10. The letters quoted above clearly indicate that the Diploma course offered by IME Mumbai is recognised by AICTE.

11. Another point raised by the applicant is that the IME has not revised the syllabus and since the second respondent has not studied under the revised syllabus he is not qualified. The respondents in their reply states it has also been certified that the final pass in the Technician Engineers Part-I and Part-II examination is under new revised syllabus approved by AICTE and recognised by the Department of Education of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India at par with a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering vide notification No.F-23-2/2001-TS-III dated 24.11.2006. Shri G.Magesh Kumar, the second respondent had passed the Technician Engineers examination conducted by Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) held in June 2009 and since he was within the terms and conditions of the notification dated 24.11.2006 he was appointed to the post of CM (T/Mechanical) to be filled through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination as per the merit list.

12. The notification dated 24th November 2006 indicates that IME Mumbai is expected to follow the new syllabus after 2006 and the second respondent has passed the examination only in June, 2009 and therefore it has to be assumed that the second respondent has studied under the revised syllabus.

13. In view of the above findings we consider that there is no merit in the claim made by the applicants and the OAs are accordingly dismissed.

13. No costs. (O.P.Sosamma) (B.Venkatesweara Rao) Member(A) Member(J) grk/- .11.2012