1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.55926 OF 2014 (S-CAT)

C/W
WRIT PETITION No.10840 OF 2014 (S-CAT)
AND
WRIT PETITION No.10841 OF 2014 (S-CAT)

IN WP No.55926/2014 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

Chairman
Railway Recruitment Board,
18, Millers Road,
Bangalore-560046.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. V.K.Narayana Swamy, Advocate)

AND:

T.G.N. Munindra Kumar,

Aged about 33 years,
S/o. T.Markandeyula
Temp. Health and Malaria Inspector
 2

Door No.1-1-768/A/Upstairs
Gandhi Nagar-500380.
Andra Pradesh.
…Respondent
(By Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel for
Sri. Vijaya Simha Reddy, Advocate)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 18.03.2014 passed in O.A. No.411/2014 on
the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore
vide Annexure-B.

IN WP No.10840/2014 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

Chairman
Railway Recruitment Board,
18, Millers Road,
Bangalore-560046.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. V.K.Narayana Swamy, Advocate)

AND:

Sri. Nanda Kishore N.,

Aged about 33 years,
S/o. Sriramaiah
R/at HNW, 11/395,
Thukumanumitta
Santhapet SPSR,
Nellore District
Andra Pradesh.
…Respondent
(By Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel for
Sri. Vijaya Simha Reddy, Advocate)
 3

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 22.11.2013 passed in O.A. No.20/2013 on
the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore
Bench at Annexure –A.

IN WP No.10841/2014 (S CAT)

BETWEEN:

Chairman
Railway Recruitment Board,
18, Millers Road,
Bangalore-560046.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. V.K.Narayana Swamy, Advocate)

AND:

Shaik Sheriff Babu,

Aged about 33 years,
S/o. Haneef
R/at Kagitharamachandra Puram
Nadigudem, Nalgunda District
Andra Pradesh-508234.
…Respondent
(By Sri. D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel for
Sri. Vijaya Simha Reddy, Advocate)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 22.11.2013 passed in O.A. No.19/2013 on
the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore
Bench, Bangalore at Annexure -A
 4

These Writ Petitions coming on for orders this

day, A.S.Bopanna .J, made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner in these petitions is assailing the

orders dated 18.3.2014, 22.11.2013 passed by the

Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘CAT) in

O.A.No. 411/2014, O.A.No. 20/2013 and

O.A.No.19/2013.

2. The respondents claiming to be aggrieved by

their non-selection to the post of ‘Health and Malaria

Inspector, Grade-III’ in response to the Employment

Notice dated 13.3.2010 were before the CAT assailing

the same. The CAT while considering the contentions

put forth had taken note of the contentions and in that

light the qualification of the respondents herein which

had been relied upon was to be taken note for the

purpose of consideration. In that regard it is noticed

that the respondents had obtained Diploma Certificate

 5

in Public Health and Sanitation Technology from the

Institute of Public Health and Hygiene. The petitioner

had rejected the application of the respondents and in

that regard the communication dated 15.11.2012 had

indicated that the said certificate cannot be accepted in

lieu of One Year Diploma in Health/Sanitary Inspector

prescribed as one of the qualification for direct

recruitment.

3. When a similar issue had arisen for

consideration before the CAT, Hyderabad Bench, in

O.A.No. 1360/2012 in an application filed by one of the

respondents herein, the CAT, Hyderabad Bench,

through its order dated 30.10.2013 had formulated the

question to consider as to whether the Diploma

Certificate in Public Health and Sanitation Technology

submitted by the applicant in lieu of One year Diploma

in Health and Sanitary Inspector prescribed for the post

of Health and Malaria Inspector, Grade-III in Railways is

 6

valid and justified. The said question which was framed

for consideration was answered in favour of the

applicant therein who is one among the respondents

herein. It is in that light, the application had been

allowed. When a similar consideration arose before the

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Madras, a Division bench taking into consideration the

challenge made by the petitioner herein who was also

the petitioner in the said proceedings relating to the

recruitment in Chennai had taken note of the very order

and had arrived at the conclusion that the petition filed

therein does not merit consideration and accordingly it

dismissed the petition and directed to comply the order

passed by the Tribunal within a period of three months.

In that view of the matter, in the instant facts also, the

benefit is required to be provided to the respondents.

4. Accordingly, the matter being covered by the

judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High

 7

Court which has upheld the consideration made by the

CAT, these petitions are also dismissed. The petitioner

shall comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal

within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

ckl