IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 3438 of 2011(Z) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2011 IN OA.846/2011 IN OA.818/2011 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN.P.O., CHENNAI-3. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 3. RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS IN THE O.AS.) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAVEEN.M., S/O.C.K.MANI, RESIDING AT KALLUPURAYIL, S.V.M.POST OFFICE, AYANI SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN-690 518. 2. ANURAJ.K.R., S/O.RAMARAJAN PILLAI, KALOOR, MANAPPALLY SOUTH, S.R.P.M.(P.O), KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. PIN-690 539. SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 3438 of 2011(Z) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF OA.818/2011 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF STATEMENT OF STANDING COUNSEL FOR RAILWAY IN OA.818/2011 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.9.2011 IN OA.818/2011 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF OA.846/2011 (EXCLUDING ANNEXURE A1 TO A11) OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 4.10.2011 IN OA.846/2011 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- O.P (CAT).No. 3438 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. The Original Petition is filed challenging the interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereunder the Tribunal directed the appellants to give training to respondents 1 and 2 for the job of Assistant Loco Pilot along with other selectees. 2. We have heard the Standing Counsel for the Railways Sri.M.C.Cherian and counsel for the respondents. 3. The dispute raised by the petitioners is whether the respondents are eligible to be appointed as Assistant Loco Pilots. The only reason for their disqualification is that their diploma is in Applied Electronics as against Diploma in Electronics as required and notified by the respondents. 4. Counsel for the respondents has relied on Annexures A4 and A5 equivalence certificates issued by the Government of Kerala, Department of Electronics and the Director of Technical Education stating that the Applied Electronics course conducted by the Model Polytechnic, Vadakara is equivalent to Diploma in OP(CAT).3438/11 2 Electronics course conducted by regular Polytechnics. It is seen from this report that Annexures A4 and A5 orders are issued after referring the matter to the Expert Committee and based on their recommendation. The only contention raised by the Railways' counsel is that the candidates should have the same qualification as prescribed under the notification. To our specific question to the Standing Counsel for the Railways, as to whether the Railway has a case that the syllabus and the course are different in the subject of Electronics and Applied Electronics, he wanted to get details. The qualification is obviously with regard to the nature of employment, i.e., as drivers in electric trains. In our view, Applied Science has more relevance for technical work and Pure Science has more theoretical value. So much so, we are afraid whether the respondents are more qualified than the normal electronic diploma holders as respondents have studied Applied Electronics. In any case, we see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order directing the petitioners to give training to the respondents pending final decision by the Tribunal. We leave it open to the petitioner to compare the syllabus and establish before the Tribunal that the Applied Electronics is not curriculum basis equivalent to Diploma in Electronics and if so established, the OP(CAT).3438/11 3 Tribunal can reject the Original Application or otherwise they will sustain the interim order making it part of the final order. The Original Petition is dismissed with the above observations. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs