Antony Dominic, J. 1. WP(C).Nos.6014/10, 14892/10, 15398/10 & OP(CAT) No.1305/10 are filed by the party respondents in OA Nos.638/08, 554/08 and 91/09. The issue raised in these petitions relate to the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), a Group 'C' post in the Department of Electricity under the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The qualification prescribed for the post is Degree in Electrical Engineering of a recognised University or Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognised institution with two years experience in any one of the fields specified in the recruitment rules.
2. In so far as the petitioners in these 4 cases are concerned, they are diploma holders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Their applications were considered treating their qualification as equivalent to Diploma in Electrical Engineering. They took part in the selection process and were included in the ranked list. On the basis of the ranking thus obtained, they were appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and are continuing in those posts.
3. In the OAs filed by the respondents herein before the Tribunal, the contention raised was that the petitioners herein were not qualified for the post and that therefore, their applications should not have been entertained by the Administration. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal and accordingly, the OAs were allowed. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is under challenge before us.
4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Diploma of Electrical and Electronics Engineering that they possess should be taken as including both Diploma in Electrical Engineering and Diploma in Electronics Engineering. It is stated that since the diploma they possess includes Diploma in Electrical Engineering also, the qualification possessed by them should have been treated as one satisfying the prescribed qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. It is also their complaint that the Tribunal held them ineligible for the post without considering the power of the Administration to treat the qualification possessed by them as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in the recruitment rules.
5. The above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners were contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to them, the rule making authority has prescribed the qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering with two years experience as the qualification necessary for the post notified. When that qualification is not satisfied by the petitioners herein, the Administration could not have considered the petitioners herein as eligible candidates. Therefore, according to them, the Tribunal was justified in holding them ineligible for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical).
6. We have considered the submissions made.
7. Admittedly, the appointing authority has prescribed the qualifications in the recruitment rules framed by it. The qualification so prescribed is Degree in Electrical Engineering or Diploma in Electrical Engineering with two years experience in the fields specified in the recruitment rules itself. As against the said specification of Diploma in
Engineering. The recruitment rule does not include Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering also for the post nor does the recruitment rule contained a prescription that qualifications equivalent to Diploma in Electrical Engineering would also be treated as a qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). In such circumstances, the only qualification that could have been treated as the prescribed qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) is either Degree in Electrical Engineering or Diploma in Electrical Engineering with the prescribed experience. This requirement is not satisfied by any one of the petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.15398/10, which is filed by the 5th respondent in OA No.638/10 and the 4th respondent in OA No.91/09, referred us to Ext.P3, a certificate issued by the Additional Director of Technical Education (Polytechnics), Directorate of Technical Education, Curriculum Development Centre, Chennai-25. This certificate shows that, from the academic year 1986-
87 onwards, the Department of Technical Education, Chennai is offering only Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering and this certificate concludes by stating that “hence for all purpose the Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering course may be considered as equivalent to Diploma in Electrical Engineering”.
9. The equivalence which is recommended in the certificate should be a conscious act on the part of the rule making authority. In so far as these cases are concerned, the Union Territory of Lakshadweep has not undertaken such an exercise. In such circumstances, this certificate recommending equivalence, in the absence of the same having been recognised in the rules, cannot improve the case of the petitioners.
10. Counsel also referred us to Exts.P4 and P5 to contend that Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering has been accepted by the Government of Kerala as a qualification equivalent to that of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The fact that the Government of Kerala, for recruitment in the Government service, has chosen to equate the qualification of Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering with Diploma in Electrical Engineering does not bind the Lakshadweep Administration in any manner nor can such equivalence be taken advantage of in the recruitment to the service under the Lakshadweep Administration. Therefore, these documents also do not help the petitioners herein to contend that the qualification of Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering possessed by them would satisfy the prescription in the recruitment rule, viz., Diploma in Electrical Engineering.
11. Resultantly, the conclusion of the Central Administrative Tribunal that the petitioners herein did not satisfy the eligibility laid down in the recruitment rules for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) has to be upheld.
12. As a necessary consequence, WP(C) Nos.6014/10, 15398/10, 14892/10 and OP(CAT) No.1305/10 deserves to be rejected.
13. Yet another contention raised in WP(C).Nos.14891/10 and 14892/10, which are filed against the orders passed by the Tribunal in OA Nos.91/09 and 554/08 respectively are that the 4th respondent in OA No.91/09 did not have the prescribed experience and that respondents 4 and 5 in OA No.554/08 are overaged and therefore were ineligible.
14. The contention that the 4th respondent in O.A.91/09 did not have the prescribed experience of two years has been specifically answered in the counter affidavit filed in W.P(C).15398/10. The details furnished therein show that at the time when the notification was issued, he had more than 24 months of experience. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.
15. The contention raised against respondents 4 and 5 in O.A.554/08 was that they were overaged in as much as they had crossed 30 years on 15.9.2006, the maximum that was prescribed. However, the explanation of the Administration is that all candidates were given relaxation of age by two years and it was on that basis, the candidature of respondents 4 and 5 were considered. Since a uniform relaxation has been given by the Administration for all candidates, we do not think that the contention raised in W.P(C). 14892/10 that respondents 4 and 5 in O.A.554/08 were overaged can be accepted.
16. As regards OP(CAT).1493/13 filed against the order in O.A.345/12, the case of the applicant was that the one vacancy in the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) notified by the Lakshadweep Administration on 3.9.2011 should have been included in the notification dated 16.5.2008 where the Administration had invited applications against 6 vacancies. This contention is raised relying on Annexure A6 produced in the OA suggesting that the vacancy that was notified on 3.9.2011 arose on 30.6.2008. However, this has been explained by the Administration in the reply statement filed in OA.345/12 in paragraphs 4 and 7 thus:
“4. It is submitted that one post of Junior Engineer (Ele) became vacant consequent on the promotion of Shri.M.P.Dharweshkhan, Junior Engineer (Electrical) as Assistant Engineer (Ele) on regular basis on 19.05.2011. Hence, the Department has invited applications to the post of Junior Engineer, Electrical by Notification F.No.36/1/2001-Estt/Ele dated 03.09.2011 (Annexure A8). It is submitted that the vacancy notified now as per Annexure A8 was not on account of the retirement of one Mr.Thangakoya. It is due to the promotion of Shri.M.P.Dharweshkhan, to the post of Assistant Engineer (Ele) on 19.05.2011.
7. These 6 vacancies which arose up to 31.03.2008 were notified by Annexure A2 on 16.5.2008. The vacancy arose due to the retirement of Shri.M.Thangakoya and Shri.T.P.Pookoya, who retired on 30.06.2008 and 31.05.2009 respectively, were filled on rejoining duty of Shri.V.B.Ali, AE on reversion and repatriation of Shri.A.C.Attakoya, JE. The vacancy which arose on 19.05.2011 was notified by Annexure A8.”
17. There is no material to indicate that the assertion made to the above effect is factually erroneous. If that be so, the vacancy that arose on 30.6.2008 was also filled up by an internal candidate and the vacancy which was notified on 3.9.2011 arose only in May, 2011. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting OA.345/12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the OP also deserves to be rejected.
18. That leaves us with W.P(C).5222/10 which is filed by the applicant in OA.638/08. He was a candidate who applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in response to the vacancies that were notified on 16.5.2008. Being a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering with two years experience, he had satisfied the educational qualification prescribed for the post. However, when the select list was published, he found that those who were included action of the Lakshadweep Administration in selecting candidates who were not eligible for the post notified that he filed the OA. In that OA, he had also raised a contention that the selected candidates were overaged.
19. The Tribunal disposed of the OA by its order dated 27.1.2010, upholding the case of the applicant that the selected candidates possessing Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering were not qualified for the post. However, the Tribunal, after setting aside the selection, went on to direct that the Administration can re-notify the post, if necessary, after amending the qualification. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal, having accepted his contentions, should have directed that appointments should be made from among the eligible candidates. We have already upheld the conclusion of the Tribunal that the persons who possess diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering did not satisfy the qualification prescribed in the recruitment rule and that therefore, they were ineligible for the post in question. Now the question is what should be the consequential directions that ought to have been issued in the light of the aforesaid conclusion.
20. In so far as the petitioner in W.P(C).5222/10 is concerned, he, admittedly, is a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering and has also satisfied the experience prescribed. The Administration does not have a case that in the selection process, he was found unfit. On the other hand, what the Administration did was that they prepared a ranked list to the extent of the notified vacancies and in that ranked list, since Diploma holders in Electrical and Electronics Engineering were included, the petitioner did not find a place. In other words, but for the inclusion of the ineligible candidates in the ranked list, the petitioner herein would have found a place in the ranked list. Therefore, when ineligible persons, who were included in the ranked list, are removed, necessarily the Administration should re-cast the ranked list by including the eligible and suitable candidates who had offered themselves against the vacancies that were notified on 16.5.2008.
21. In this context, we should take note of the contention raised by some of the party respondents that as the law is settled that even persons included in the rank list has no indefeasible right to get appointed, this Court will not be justified in requiring the Administration to re-cast the ranked list and proceed to make appointment on that basis.
22. Though, in abstract, the said contention is legally correct, we are unable to deny relief to the petitioner, accepting the same. This is for the reason that in so far as this case is concerned, the petitioner herein was not included in the ranked list only because of the inclusion of the ineligible candidates in the ranked list. Secondly, the ranked list was acted upon by the Administration and the ineligible candidates who were included therein were offered appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). In such a situation when the ineligible candidates are removed from the ranked list and the ranked list is prepared including eligible candidates, the eligible candidates who are included in the ranked list are entitled to replace the ineligible candidates who were appointed from out of the ranked list which is invalidated by the Tribunal.
23. From the order, we notice that the Tribunal has also faulted with the Administration in combining the recruitment to the 2 vacancies that were notified in 2008 and the 4 vacancies that arose subsequently, in the recruitment that was held in pursuance of the notification issued on 16.5.2008. Such a finding has been made despite the fact that there was no challenge against the clubbing of the vacancies as has been done by the Administration.
24. Therefore, the Administration is bound to prepare the ranked list afresh, including eligible candidates possessing the qualifications mentioned in the notification dated 16.5.2008 and from out of that ranked list, make appointments to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). This the Administration should do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The order of the Tribunal in OA.638/08 will stand modified to that effect.
25. Since we have ordered that a select list should be prepared afresh with the eligible candidates and appointments made on that basis, we clarify that once the vacancies are filled up on that basis, it would be open to the Administration to fill up all the remaining vacancies together, applying the recruitment rules which are now in force.
With the above directions, the writ petitions and the original petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.