WP/26528/2005 of Gummadi Babu Rao S/o Late Rajakomuraiah Vs The Bharat Sanchar Nigam LTd., rep by Chairman AND on 28 December 2005

O R D E R:

The petitioners, who are working in various capacities in the Bharat Sanchar NigamLimited (BSNL), seek a declaration that the order dated 8.11.2005, passed by thesecond respondent herein, communicating the decision, taken by the firstrespondent, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the orders, dated13.7.2005, passed by this Court in W.P.No.16015 of 2004 and batch. The matterrelates to relaxation of standards in Part-I examination for the post of JuniorAccounts Officer (JAO).

The next superior post for the petitioners is JAO. Appointment to that post is purelyby way of promotion, but subject to passing of Part-I & II examinations, conducted forthat purpose. The petitioners appeared in the Part-I examination held in the years1999 and 2003. They did not secure the minimum qualifying marks. Drawinganalogy from the relaxation granted by the respondents, in respect of the promotionto the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO), the petitioners approached theHyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A.No.1313 of 2003.The Tribunal disposed of the O.A., on 6.1.2004, directing the respondents toconsider the representation of the petitioners herein, for extending the benefit ofreduction of qualifying marks in Part-I & II examinations for the post of JAO held inthe years 1999 and 2003, on the same lines, as was done vide orders dated10.3.2003, for the posts of JTOs. The respondents passed an order dated 7.4.2004,stating that it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners. Challengingthe same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16015 and 16413 of 2004. The writ petitionswere allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the matter afresh,keeping in view the relaxation given for the posts of JTOs.

In compliance with the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent consideredthe matter and rejected the representation of the petitioners. The same wascommunicated through the impugned order.

Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that except for thedifference as to the nature of duties, the posts of JTO and JAO are similar in all respects, and when the respondents have relaxed the standards for the qualifyingexamination for the post of JTO, there was absolutely no basis for according adifferential treatment to the petitioners. He contends that on account of the onerousstandards prescribed by the respondents in the examinations for the post of JAO,majority of the candidates who have the requisite seniority failed in the examination,and as a result, about 2000 posts remained vacant. He alleges that except repeatingthe stand taken by them, while passing the order dated 7.4.2004, the respondentsdid not indicate any other grounds.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that no individual can claimrelaxation of standards or percentage of marks as of right. He alleges that adequatenumber of candidates have cleared the examination and the contention of thepetitioners that posts are vacant, on account of non-availability of candidates, is notcorrect.

This can be said to be the third round of litigation, insofar as it relates to the claim ofthe petitioners, for relaxation of the standards in the qualifying examination, forpromotion to the post of JAO. The grounds urged by the petitioners are that thestandards in the test are very high; and that the respondents have discriminated, inthe matter of relaxation. Before dealing with these contentions, the parameters forthe promotion to the said two categories of posts need to be taken note of.

The post of JTO is on technical side, whereas the JAO is on accounts side. 50% ofthe posts of JTO are filled through direct recruitment, 15% through promotion fromdepartmental candidates and 35% by holding a competitive examination, restrictingthe participation, to the service candidates. In contrast, the appointment to the post ofJAO is exclusively through promotion.

Against 15% quota in the posts of JTO, earmarked for service candidates, minimumeducational qualifications are stipulated viz., pass in 10+2 pattern examination, andpossession of a diploma of 3-years duration in the specified technical discipline.There is no stipulation of educational qualifications, for the post of JAO.

It is always for the appointing authority to prescribe the tests as well as theirstandards, for selecting the candidates for appointment or promotion to anyparticular post. Such qualifications or standards would in turn depend upon the nature of duties to be discharged by the candidates, selected for the concernedposts. Courts maintain utmost reluctance in the matter of evaluation of standardsprescribed by the academic agencies or appointing authorities. The only scope forinterference in these matters is, where the authorities discriminate betweencandidates who are similarly situated. At any rate, no individual has a fundamental,or legal right, to insist that the standards of a given test, must be of a particular level;much less to compel the authority, to relax the standards, stipulated by it.

Insofar as the plea of the petitioners as to discrimination is concerned, it is difficult toaccept the same, in the context of their drawing analogy to different categories ofposts. It has already been indicated that the posts of JAO and JTO are totallydifferent, from each other, in many respects. There does not exist any functional orother related similarity, in these two posts.

In the impugned order, the respondents have furnished distinguishing features ofthese two categories of posts, and narrated the circumstances under whichrelaxation was granted, in respect of 15% quota of posts of JTOs. It has been statedthat the incumbents concerned were already trained on the technical side, and wereexpected to undertake inspection and maintenance of Telephone Exchanges,Telephone apparatus, etc. The respondents point out that JAOs are a specializedgroup of employees, who have to handle the complicated and important matters onfinancial and accounting branches.

The question of discrimination would arise, if only the two categories, which arecompared with each other, are similarly situated. The nature of functions, method ofappointment and qualifications prescribed for promotion, are different for the posts ofJTO and JAO. The petitioners cannot undertake any comparison of the same, muchless complain of discrimination.

The allegation of the petitioners that large number of posts of JAOs are lying vacant,on account of non-availability of qualified candidates, has also been adverted to, bythe respondents. It is stated that there are 500 posts of the Grade of JAO, and 800

candidates, who have qualified in Part-I, are scheduled to take Part-II examination.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs.

___________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

Dt. 28[th] December 2005Note:L.R.copies be marked.(B/o)

PAN