WP(C) 5388/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 14-02-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (for short the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 375 of 2001. On the same day the Tribunal passed anoth er order in Original Application No. 450 of 2001 following the earlier order. Th e petitioner is aggrieved by the second order also. 2. The petitioner, that is, the Indian Council of Agricultural Rese arch (for short ICAR) issued 3 (three) advertisements in April, 2001 for appoint ment to the post of Senior Scientist. The first advertisement was for Senior Sci entist (Biotechnology), Hyderabad; the second advertisement was for Senior Scien tist (Animal Genetics & Breeding), Bikaner and the third advertisement was for S enior Scientist (Animal Genetics and Breeding), Izatnagar. 3. The essential qualifications for all these posts were as follows : QUALIFICATIONS: a) ESSENTIAL: i) Doctoral degree in Animal Breeding. ii) 5 (five) years experience (excluding the period spent in obtaining the P h.D degree, during service, subject to maximum of 3 years) in research/teaching/ extension education as a Scientist (Rs. 8000-13,500) or in an equivalent positio n in the relevant subject. iii) Evidence of contribution to Research/Teaching/Extension Education as sup ported by published work/innovations. iv) Specialization and experience in livestock production 4. In response to the advertisements, the respondent submitted his application. In the application, the respondent stated that he had the requisite qualification for appointment and gave details of his experience as follows: 10. Details of Experience: Post held Basic pay Period Nature of duties Employer Assistant Professor Rs.8,550/- + Allowances Contd. From 4th Feb.1999 Teaching & Research Central Agri. University, Imphal Research Associate Rs.10,500/- + HRA(Consolidated) 30th May,95 to 1st Feb.’ 99 Research & Teaching C.A.R.I. Izatnagar (Bareilly) Graduate research Asstt. Rs.450/-(Fixed) 15 Yrs. Research work G.B.P.U. A&T Pantnagar 5. The ICAR did not respond to the application of the respondent. T he respondent therefore made inquiries some time in July 2001 when he was told t hat since he did not meet the experience criteria, his application was not consi dered. 6. In view of the non-consideration of his application, the respond ent approached the Central Avian Research Institute (his employer) for an experi ence certificate. The certificate dated 21-8-2001 issued to the respondent by th e Central Avian Research Institute is as follows: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Dr. S. Malik has served at this Institute on the post of Research Associate in projects as per details given below. 1. Adhoc Research Project entitled Genetic Characterization of Indigenous Poultry Germ Plasm in the pay scale of Rs.3300-100-3800+H.R.A. w.e.f. 30.5.95 t o 11.3.97 revised w.e.f. 28.3.96 in the pay scale of 3750-125-4375+H.R.A. 2. Research Project entitled Development and Breeding of Synthetic Broiler Strain in the pay scale of Rs.3750-125-4375+H.R.A. w.e.f. 12.3.97 to 1.2.99 wi th two advance increments i.e. Rs.4000/- per month revised w.e.f. 1.4.98 Rs.10,5 000+H.R.A.(consolidated). During the above periods his work and conduct have been found excellent. 7. At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the Central Avian Research Institute is a unit of the ICAR and the contents of the certificate ar e not in dispute. 8. From a perusal of the aforesaid certificate, it is clear that th e respondent worked on the post of Research Associate, which carried a pay scale of Rs. 3300-3800 plus H.R.A with effect from 30-5-1995 to 11-3-1997. The pay wa s subsequently revised with effect from 28-3-1996 to Rs. 3750-4375 plus H.R.A. T he respondent also worked as a Research Associate in another Research Project fo r the period from 12-3-1997 to 1-2-1999. In the second research project, the res pondent was in the pay scale of Rs. 3750-4375 plus H.R.A along with two advance increments. The pay of the respondent was revised from 1-4-1998 to Rs. 10,500/- (consolidated) plus H.R.A. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent w orked on the post of Research Associate for period of almost 4 (four) years and that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 10,500/-. As such, even though he may not ha ve worked as a Scientist in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- he certainly work ed in an equivalent position. 10. On the basis of the experience certificate dated 21.08.2001 issu ed by the Central Avian Research Institute, the respondent approached the Tribun al contending that he had the requisite essential qualification for selection to the post of Senior Scientist. 11. The Tribunal entertained the application of the respondent and b y the impugned orders aforesaid it was held that the respondent had worked in th e post of Research Associate for about 4 (four) years and thereafter as an Assis tant Professor and thus completed the 5 (five) years experience required in term s of the three advertisements issued by the ICAR. 12. Feeling aggrieved, the ICAR has preferred these two writ petitio ns. Both the writ petitions were earlier taken up for consideration by a Divisio n Bench of this Court on 6-9-2002 and dismissed. The ICAR then approached the Su preme Court and by an order dated 26-11-2009, the Supreme Court directed that th e matter be heard afresh since no reasons were given for the dismissal order. Th at is how the matter is now before us. 13. The issue raised by the ICAR is that the respondent was ineligib le because he did not at all hold the post of Scientist in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/-. Unfortunately what has been overlooked by the ICAR is that the re spondent held an equivalent position and by virtue of holding an equivalent posi tion, the respondent was eligible for being considered for selection against all the three advertisements. 14. To show equivalence between the post of Scientist and Research A ssociate, the respondent has filed before us a statement, which has not been con troverted by the ICAR, and as per that statement, the post of Scientist and Rese arch Associate are comparable. The statement is as follows: Scientist Research Associate 4th Pay Commission Rs. 2,200-4,000/- Rs. 3300-100-3800 (Master’s Degr ee) Rs. 3750-125-4375/- (Ph. D. Degree) 5th Pay Commission Rs. 8,000-13,500/- Rs. 10,500/- Revised to Rs. 18,0 00/- 6th Pay Commission Rs. 15,600-39100/- G. P. Rs. 6,000/- Rs. 23,000/- (Ma ster’s degree) Rs. 24,000 (Ph.D degree) 15. A perusal of the aforesaid statement shows that in terms of the report of the 5th Pay Commission a Research Associate getting a salary of Rs. 10 ,500/- (as in the case of the respondent) is equivalent to a Scientist in the pa y scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. The aforesaid chart also shows that under the 4th P ay Commission report a Research Associate in the pay scale of Rs. 3300-3800/- an d Rs. 3750-4375/- is equivalent to Scientist in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- . The pay scale of a Scientist of Rs. 2200-4000/- was revised to Rs. 8000-13,500 /- in the 5th Pay Commission. Similarly, the pay scale of Research Associate wa s revised from Rs. 3300-3800/3750-4375/- to Rs. 10,500/- in the 5th Pay Commissi on report. It is therefore quite clear that at all stages a Research Associate h olds a position equivalent to a Scientist, although the pay scale may be differe nt. 16. Under the circumstances, the ICAR is incorrect in contending tha t the respondent was ineligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist. The respondent held a position equivalent to that of a Sci entist in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- and was, therefore, entitled to be considered for appointment as a Senior Scientist. 17. We do not find any error in the view been taken by the Tribunal. 18. There is no merit in both the writ petitions. They are according ly dismissed.