Sindhu Sharma, J.
01. This petition is directed against judgment dated 28.04.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in O.A. No. 060/0026/2014, whereby the O.A. of the petitioner has been dismissed.
02. Briefly stated, the facts which arise in this petition are as under:-
03. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, notified examination for Junior Accounts Officer Part-I (Screening Test) and Part-II (Main Exam) in BSNL for internal candidates under the modified old syllabus (One time relaxation vide its notification dated 12.10.2004). The vacancies in the grade of JAOs in BSNL were to be filled in the following manner: -
a. 50% of the vacant posts in the crisis by direct recruitment through open competitive examination.
b. 40% of the vacant posts in the circle by promotion from the employees working in BSNL through internal competitive examination.
c. 10% of the vacant posts in the circle by promotion from Senior Accountants working in BSNL through internal competitive examination.
04. The respondents considering the request of candidates for appearing in JAO examination against 40% internal quota relaxed the eligibility condition regarding qualification. The eligibility conditions were prescribed as under: -
i. All the absorbed non-executives are eligible to appear in the examination.
ii. Educational Qualifications: 10+2
iii. Age: Candidate should not be more than 53 years of age as on 1st January of the year in which the internal examination is scheduled to be held.
iv. Service Condition: 10 years of regular service in the Government/Department/BSNL.
05. The petitioner joined the respondent Department as Mazdoor on 08.03.1996 and was promoted as Telecom Mechanic on 30.03.1998 and Telecom Technical Assistant (TTA) in November 2009. The petitioner, also applied for the post of Junior Accounts Officer, for the 40% posts, pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 12.10.2004, as an internal candidate on one time relaxed eligibility condition of educational qualification of 10+2.
06. That Pursuant to the notification dated 12.10.2004, under the relaxed eligibility condition, various references and requests for clarification were received by the BSNL Headquarters from different Circles raising some doubts in respect of the eligibility criteria for JAO examination for internal candidates on relaxed conditions.
07. The respondents, after examining the doubts raised by the Circle vide letter dated 22.11.2004, issued the clarification regarding point No. 1, i.e. whether the intermediate PUC and old Higher Secondary/Prep (11 years duration) passed, can be treated as equivalent to 10+2 qualification. The clarification given by BSNL was that intermediate and PUC are equivalent to examination of 10+2; however, old Higher Secondary Prep 11 years duration is not equivalent to 10+2.
08. On 23.12.2004, another letter was issued on the same issue, again on the same point raised by the Circle regarding JAO-Part I Exam was whether the intermediate, PUC, and old Higher Secondary/Prep (11 years duration) passed can be treated as equivalent to 10+2 qualification. The clarification given was that intermediate, PUC, and old Higher Secondary/Prep (11 years duration) conducted by the Board of Examinations are to be treated as equivalent to the examination of 10+2.
09. Some reference was again received on 19.05.2005, seeking clarification regarding JAO Part-I (screening test) to be held on 29.05.2005 and on 19.05.2005. on the same point raised, in continuation to the Office letters dated 22.11.2004 and 23.12.2004, about whether SSLC (11th Standard) conducted by the Board of Examination can be treated as equivalent 10+2 for appearing in the JAO screening test examination, it was opined that necessary clarification was given by letter dated 23.12.2004.
10. The respondents, it appears continued to make references from circles, associates, individual officials seeking clarification regarding eligibility criteria in context of educational qualification from appearing in JAO Part I/screening test. This resulted the respondents, directing all circles vide letter dated 25.08.2005 to take decision regarding admissibility of educational qualification in consultation with the concerned Board of School Education in their respective State/Union Territory. The Assistant General Manager, J&K Circle (BSNL) sought the clarification in the context of educational qualification from the Secretary Board of School Education regarding admissibility of educational qualification obtained through different pattern at par with present 10+2. The Board vide its reply dated 21.09.2005, held PUC as well as Higher Secondary Part I equivalent to 11th class.
11. The petitioner, though admittedly not possessing 10+2 qualification but only Higher Secondary Part I, also applied for appearing in the JAO examination for promotion to the post of JAO under the SC category. He appeared in the screening test held on 29.05.2005; however, later, the aforesaid examination was cancelled by the respondents. The screening test cancelled was re-conducted on 27.05.2004.
12. The result of the examination was declared on 04.08.2007. The petitioner cleared the qualifying exam Part I. Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the examination for JAO Part-II, but did not clear the same. But subsequently appeared in the reexamination held vide notification dated 03.09.2012. The result was declared but the petitioner’s name was not included in it. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a detailed representation for declaration of his result and in case the petitioner is successful for his promotion to the post of JAO.
13. The respondents, vide their communication dated 08.05.2014, informed the petitioner that his candidature for JAO Part-I screening test held on 29.05.2005 was cancelled as he is not eligible as he lacked the educational qualification, i.e., Higher Secondary Part-I, for the post of JAO. The qualification mentioned by the petitioner’s application as well as record is PUC, which is not the prescribed qualification for appearing in the screening test, and therefore, he was asked to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.
14. The petitioner, aggrieved of the order cancelling his candidature for the JAO approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of show cause notice dated 26.02.2014 and also quashing of order dated 08.05.2014, cancelling his candidature for the post of JAO part-I Screening Test and to declare his result of JAO examination, and if he qualify the same, then promote him to the post of JAO.
15. As per the notification, one of the relaxed eligibility conditions was that a candidate must possess educational qualification of 10+2. The petitioner admittedly did not possess the qualification of 10+2 but had qualified only Higher Secondary Part-I, which according to him as per the clarification issued by the respondents, was equivalent to 10+2 qualification, thus, making him eligible to participate and be promoted to the post of JAO. The entire controversy emanates from the issue whether Higher Secondary Part-I qualification of the petitioner was equivalent to 10+2 examination, thus, enabling him to be eligible to be considered for JAO examination.
16. The contention of the petitioner is that his Higher Secondary Part-I qualification is equivalent to 10+2, which is eligibility condition prescribed for appearing in JAO examination. The admitted educational qualification of the petitioner is Higher Secondary Part-I i.e. (class 11th) and this qualification is required to be treated as equivalent to 10+2 qualification as in the case of PUC and intermediate. The respondents have treated candidates with PUC qualification as eligible for examination on the ground that PUC is equivalent to 10+2, therefore, same analogy had to be applied to the petitioner also. The respondents have allowed many candidates with PUC qualification as eligible and in fact one candidate from Leh, Sonam Dolma, has even been declared pass.
17. A complaint was received by the respondents from circle presiding of the recognized union alleging that the petitioner was not possessing qualification of PUC which lead to investigation and the result of the petitioner was withheld. The respondents, vide letter dated 25.08.2005, have clarified that decision regarding admissibility of candidate in context of their education qualification may be taken in consultation with the concerned Board of School Education in their respective State/Union Territory and, thereafter, J&K Board has clarified in detail regarding the equivalence of examination. The relevant part of the clarification is reproduced as under:-
| 3. PUC (old) Pre-University Examination | Examination Equivalent to 11th Class (if passes) eligible for Admission in Class XII. |
| 4. HSE Part I Higher Secondary Part 1st | Equivalent to 11th Class (if passes) eligible for Admission in Class XII. |
19. The respondents submitted that the applicant passed the Higher Secondary Part-I examination in 1993, while the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation Scheme had already been introduced by the J&K Board in January 1992. The applicant mentioned his qualification as PUC in the application form, although his actual qualification is only Higher Secondary Part-I, i.e., Class 11th. Since the prescribed qualification is 10+2, he did not meet the eligibility criteria and his candidature was rejected.
20. The Tribunal, after considering rival contentions, held that the applicant had passed HS Part 1 as late as 1993, and this qualification would not make him eligible for the JAO examination for which the qualification was 10+2, and rejected the OA.
21. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal failed to consider that the respondents had decided to take the decision on admissibility of candidature in consultation with the concerned Board of School Education of respective State or UT. The J&K State Board of School Education, had clarified on 21.09.2005 that both PUC and Higher Secondary Part-I are equivalent to 11th class, and on passing either, the candidate becomes eligible for admission to 12th class. In light of this clarification, there was no occasion to cancel the candidature of the petitioner.
22. The respondents allowed the candidates with PUC qualification i.e. class 11th to participate in the JAO exam and declared their results but failed to give the same treatment to the petitioner on the ground that it is not equivalent to 10+2. It is submitted that though, the respondents themselves, vide communication dated 23.12.2004, had clarified that intermediate PUC and Old Higher Secondary prep 11 years duration conducted by Board of Examination are equivalent to 10+2, but subsequently took a stand contrary to the previous clarifications. The candidates possessing only PUC qualification (equivalent to class 11) have been declared eligible, denying the similar treatment to him. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of one Sonam Dolma, who was declared successful in JAO Part II internal examination and promoted to the post of JAO on the basis of PUC qualification, whereas the same was denied to the petitioner, in an arbitrary manner.
23. The admitted fact is that as per the eligibility criteria for the JAO examination, the eligibility conditions for 40% internal quota candidates was relaxed as a one-time measure, and 10+2 was the prescribed qualification. The prescribed educational qualification for the post was 10+2, which is the bone of contention between the parties. The respondents, no doubt, had already received various references from the various circles regarding admissibility of the claim of the candidates and had directed them to approach their concerned Board. This clarification regarding screening of JAO Part I and Part II main examination is as under:
“This office has received references from many Circles/ Associations/individual officials seeking clarification regarding the eligibility criteria for appearing in the JAO Part-I (screening test) in BSNL, in the context of educational qualifications, for internal candidates against 40% quota under modified old syllabus as a one time relaxation. In this regard, I have been directed to intimate that the circles may take decision on the admissibility of the candidature of the candidates in the context of their educational qualification in consultation with the concerned Board of School Education in the respective State / Union Territory. This is in supersession of earlier clarifications issued by this office vide letters of even number dated 22.11.2004, 23.12.2004 and 19.05.2005 regarding requirement of educational qualifications for appearing in the JAO Part-I Screening Test.”
24. In terms of this, the J&K State Board of School Education certified the equivalence of the following examinations conducted by it, which reads as under:
| Examination | Equivalence |
| 1. Matriculation (old) | Equivalent to 10th Class (if passes) eligible for Admission in Class XI. |
| 2. Secondary School Education | Equivalent to 10th Class (if passes) eligible for Admission in Class XI. |
| 3. PUC (old) Pre-University Examination | Equivalent to 11th Class (if passes) eligible for Admission in Class XII. |
| 4. HSE Part I Higher Secondary Part 1st | Equivalent to 11th Class (if passes) eligible for Admission in Class XII. |
| 5. T.D.C (Three years Degree Couse) | Equivalent to 12th Class (if passes) eligible for Admission in Degree Course. |
| 6. HSE Part-II Higher Secondary Part-II | Equivalent to 12th Class (if passes) eligible for Admission in Degree Course. |
26. The petitioner has not denied the fact that he possesses only class 11 qualification but places emphasis on the fact that the respondents have promoted Sonam Dolma, who also possessed PUC qualification equivalent to class 11, therefore, the petitioner being similarly situated should also be promoted.
27. The respondents have placed on record the judgment passed in Sonam Dolma’s case, wherein the show cause notice issued to her, seeking withdrawal of her promotion to JAO, was quashed. The said Sonam Dolma’s case was covered by old syllabus and rules. The judgment reveals that though PUC is treated equivalent to 10+2, the court refused to interfere with her promotion as she was already appointed JAO and subsequently promoted to the grade of Accounts Officer as of 29.06.2018 and later took voluntary retirement under BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019. Hence, the show cause notice was held unsustainable. This apart, there is no challenge to the candidature of Sonam Dolma.
28. There is no denying the fact that the eligibility condition for selection to the post of JAO is 10+2 and the petitioner admittedly has only Higher Secondary Part 1, i.e., Class 11th and, therefore, not eligible for consideration to the post of JAO. The petitioner seeks parity with those individuals who are not a party to this petition and whose promotion or eligibility he has not challenged. It is for the competent authority to lay down the terms and conditions of service and prescribe an essential qualification for the post. The essential qualification, which was relaxed one time as 10+2, and the petitioner not possessing the same, cannot turn around and challenge the same. With regard to whether the petitioner is to be treated similarly as Sonam Dolma, her candidature has not been challenged by the petitioner. This apart, equality is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner.
29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and others, (2001) 8 SCC 546, has held as under:
“....This Court stated that normally, it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally are. Area of interference by courts would be limited to whether the appointment made by the academic body had contravened any statutory or binding rule and while doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts and on whose recommendations the academic body had acted and not to treat such expert body as a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for decision. Equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the experts were satisfied that the equivalence has already been considered and declared by it....”
30. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.