IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7194 of 2007 Bisw Bijay Singh, S/O Sachidanand Singh, resident of Village Burhi Paimar, P.O. Gaya, P.S. Muffasil, District- Gaya ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through its Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi. 2.Director General Railway Protection Force, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3.Chief Security Commissioner, Eastern Central Railway Hazipur, Vaishali. 4.Chairman-cum-Senior Commandent Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur. 5.Commandent, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Central Railway, Hajipur------ Respondents. --------- 3. 17.11.2008 Heard Mr. Girija Nand Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh for the respondents. This writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi, to treat the qualification of Madhyama, granted by Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, as equivalent to the qualification of matriculation of the Bihar School Examination Board. 2. The East Central Railway issued Employment Notice no. 01- 2005 (Annexure-1), in the year 2005, inviting applications for appointment of male constables in the Railway Protection Force for Bihar. The relevant portion of the advertisement describing minimum educational qualification is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “(b) Educational qualification: The candidate should have passed at least matriculation/High School of Bihar Board or equivalent Examination. However, matriculation from the National Open School Delhi shall be allowed to appear in the State/UTS in the State indicated in their Matriculation Certificate 2 issued by the National Open School Delhi.” The petitioner submitted his application and registered as a candidate. He holds the qualification of Madhyama granted by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. He appeared at the physical test and the written test, and was called for viva-voce test. He appeared at the viva-voce test but the marks of the same were not added to the marks obtained by him leading to C.W.J.C. No. 6523 of 2005 (Biswa Bijay Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.). The same was disposed of by order dated 16.11.2005 (Annexure-5), whereby the respondent authorities were directed to add the marks obtained at viva-voce test, even though he had not produced his original testimonials at the time of viva-voce test. 3. The marks obtained at the viva-voce test were added but the petitioner did not receive the appointment letter leading to a contempt application bearing M.J.C. No. 387 of 2006, which was disposed of by order dated 22.1.2007 (Annexure-6), wherein this Court noted the contention of the respondents that the appointment letter was not being issued to the petitioner because he did not hold the educational qualification. This Court made following observation in the said order dated 22.1.2007: “ Assuming by mistake he was permitted to sit in the Written Examination, he could not be permitted to appear at the Viva-Voce test examination. Even at the Viva-Voce Test, he should not have been tested but after all these it is unfortunate that the Opposite Parties are seeking to hold out that the petitioner is not qualified. However, this aspect of the matter cannot be decided in the contempt jurisdiction and accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach such forum as he may be advised. 3 Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.” Hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue whether or not the Madhyama qualification is equivalent to matriculation is concluded by the order dated 16.11.2005 (Annexure- 5), no appeal having been preferred, the same attained finality. In other words, in his submission, the question of equivalence of Madhyama degree can not now be raised at this stage. He further relies on certain documents on record. He also submits that the Bihar Government and some other agencies of the Central Government do recognize Madhyama qualification as equivalent to the matriculation. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has resisted the writ petition. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me on a perusal of the order dated 16.11.2005( Annexure-5), that the writ petition was allowed on the footing that the respondent authorities had taken an unreasonable stand at the stage of viva-voce test that the petitioner was required to produce the original testimonials. The advertisement stipulated that the testimonials in original were required to be produced at the inception, and photo copies were required to be produced at the time of viva-voce test. Therefore, the Court directed that the petitioner could not be disqualified on the ground that he was unable to produce the original certificates at the stage of viva-voce test followed by consequential directions. The 4 respondent-authorities carried out the order and added the marks obtained by the petitioner at the viva-voce test, notwithstanding which the appointment letter was not issued because he lacked the basic educational qualification of matriculation certificate of the Bihar School Examination Board or equivalent examination. It further appears to me that in view of the position that equivalence of educational qualification was not in question at the time of the disposal of the earlier writ petition, the contempt application was disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to raise this question before the appropriate forum. In other words, the question of equivalence of qualification is at large and has to be adjudicated in the present proceedings. 7. The respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that the Railway Board has not so far recognized Madhyama qualification of Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board as equivalent to the matriculation of the Bihar School Examination Board. The stand is supported by the communication dated 16.11.2005 (Annexure-A), from the Joint Director, Establishment, Railway Board, to the General Manager (Personnel), of different units of the Indian Railways, informing them of this position. The relevant portion of the said communication is reproduced hereinbelow: “ cgqr ls {ks=h; jsyksa rFkk jsy HkrhZ cksMksZa us bl laca/k esa Li’Vhdj.k ekaxk gS fd D;k fcgkj laLÑr f”k{kk cksMZ] iVuk, ls mÙkh.kZ fd, x, e/;ek@çFkek ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ djus ij çnku fd, x, çek.ki= dks jsyos esa HkrhZ ds ç;kstu ls ekU;rk çkIr gSA bl laca/k esa dkfeZd ,oa çf”k{k.k foHkkx ds ijke”kZ ls tkap dh xbZ gS ,oa ;g Li’V fd;k tkrk gS fd fcgkj laLÑr f”k{kk cksMZ] iVuk, ekU;rk 5 çkIr laLFkku ugha gS vkSj muds }kjk çnÙk çek.k i= Hkh dsaæh; ljdkj esa fu;qfDr@inksUufr ds ç;kstu gsrq ekU;rk çkIr ugha gSA ” It further appears from the communication dated 13.2.2007 (Annexure-E), from the Chief Security Commissioner, East Central Railway, Hajipur, to the Director General of Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, whereby the candidature of the three candidates mentioned therein were rejected on identical ground. The relevant portion of the said communication is reproduced hereinbelow:- uke firk Tkkfr Øekad la[;k “kS{kf.kd laLFkk dk uke Jh eqds”k dqekj lkg Jh xtk/kj lkg xksaM 30600004 fcgkj laLÑr f”k{kk cksMZ] iVuk (eSfVªd) Jh ftrsUæ dqekj çlkn Jh jke v;ks/;k çlkn xksaM 30500005 fgUnh fo|kfiB nso?kj dk çek.k i= (eSfVªd) Jh vuqt dqekj Jh eqlkfQj ikloku nqlk/k 20401223 fcgkj laLÑr f”k{kk cksMZ] iVuk (eSfVªd) It thus appears to me that the Railway Board has not so far recognized the Madhyama qualification of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board as equivalent to the matriculation of the Bihar School Examination Board. 8. I must in all fairness notice the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was open to the respondents to raise this issue in the previous writ petition. The issue perhaps could not be raised because of the absence of the counter affidavit of the respondents. Furthermore, as it appears to me from a perusal of the order dated 16.11.2005 disposing of the writ petition, and in view of the frame of the writ petition, the same was confined to the question whether or not the respondent authorities were right in refusing to add the marks obtained by the petitioner detained at the viva-voce test on 6 the ground that he had not produced the testimonials in original at that stage. The following portion of advertisement is reproduced hereinbelow: “ Original certificates will be seen and checked. Only Photo-copies of certificates will be retained. Documents relating to higher qualifications/Sports/Technical Qualifications may be produced at the time of Viva-voce only. ” In view of this condition in the advertisement, this Court rightly proceeded on the footing that the respondent authorities had not taken the right stand in requiring the petitioner to produce the original testimonials at the time of the viva-voce test. He was required only photo copy of the same at that stage. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on certain documents to show that the Bihar Government has recognized Madhyama as equivalent to matriculation. The decision of the Bihar Government can not bind the Railway Board. He has also relied on certain documents relating to the candidates for appointment to the Indian Navy etc. None of this group of documents establishes that the Indian Navy etc. have recognized Madhyama to be equivalent to matriculation. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents is right in his submission that act of compassion in the present proceeding will open flood-gates in a situation where the Railway Board has set its face against equivalence. He is further right in his submission that the issue regarding the equivalence qualifications is basically and fundamentally a function of the appropriate authority. It would be 7 unsafe for the Court to undertake the responsibility of determining equivalence of qualifications. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)