IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 410 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------- OA. 584/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: 1. THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, B.S.N.L., KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVAKAIMAL, SC, BSNL SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR RESPONDENT: M.MURALIDHARAN, TELECOM MECHANIC, OFFICE OF THE SDE OCB (MAINTENANCE), CENTRAL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, PATTALAM ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 014. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.SURAJ.S SMT.VINEETHA B. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.Basheer & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ. --------------------------------------------------- O.P.(CAT)No.410 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The respondent, who is working as Telecom Mechanic in the Central Telephone Exchange under Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), had participated in the pre-qualification test held for those employees who do not possess 10+2 Standard certificate. The respondent passed the test and thus became eligible to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) being conducted by the BSNL for promotion to the cadre of Telecom Technical Assistant under the 40% promotion quota earmarked for the in service candidates. 2. But, the respondent could not pass the LDCE held in 2005 and 2006. Thereafter, in the year 2009, another LDCE was notified to fill up the remaining vacancies of Telecom Technical Assistant in the Kerala Circle. Though the respondent wanted to appear for the examination, his application was rejected on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification of 10+2. In other words, the authorities took the view that the pre-qualification test passed by him OPCAT 410/2011 2 in 2004 would be of no avail to him. The respondent therefore approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench for an appropriate direction to the authorities concerned to permit him to appear for the LDCE. 3. The Tribunal noticed that the respondent had qualified for promotion by passing the LDCE on the strength of an interim order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent and directed the petitioners herein to promote the respondent as Telecom Technical Assistant “subject to fulfilling other conditions as applicable to successful candidates”. 4. The above order is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that the Corporate Office of the BSNL, which is the competent authority for conduct of Departmental Examinations, had made it clear that employees like the respondent who had passed the pre-qualification test in the year 2004 were not eligible to participate in the LDCE for promotion to the cadre of Telecom Technical Assistant for the Recruitment Year 2008. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the Tribunal has committed serious illegality and irregularity in refusing to follow the OPCAT 410/2011 3 decision rendered by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, on an identical issue, in Exhibit P3 order. 5. It is beyond controversy that the pre-qualification test was being conducted by the Department from time to time, starting from 2001, with a view to enable those employees who were not fortunate enough to pass the 10+2 examination. The question whether the employees, who passed the pre-qualification test, would be entitled to appear for the LDCE only once, had come up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C)No.7391/ 2007. It was held in the above case that since a pass in the pre-qualification test has, in principle, been accepted as a qualification which is equivalent to 10+2 at least for the purpose of enabling the candidates to appear for the LDCE, it may not be fair and reasonable to restrict the benefit unless the intention was manifest and is otherwise justified. However, in the said judgment, this Court had made it clear that it will be open to the authorities concerned in taking a decision not to extend the benefit to future examinations. 6. The Tribunal noticed that after pronouncement of the above judgment by this Court, the competent authority had not issued any orders restricting the benefit of pass in the pre-qualification test to OPCAT 410/2011 4 only one chance to participate in the LDCE. It was also noticed by the Tribunal that the Principal Bench of the Tribunal had no occasion to consider the above judgment while passing the order in O.A.No. 993/2010, on which much reliance was placed by the learned standing counsel for the petitioners. 7. Having considered the entire materials available on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, since, in our view, the Tribunal has considered the relevant aspects of the issue in their proper perspective. Therefore, the original petition is dismissed. (A.K.Basheer, Judge) (P.Q.Barkath Ali, Judge) tkv