GUTHULA HANUMANTH PRASAD vs M/o Railways on 13 October 2026

1. Union of India, represented by the Chairman Railway Board, Minister of Railways Raisana Road, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-11001.

2. The General Manager, South Central Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

3. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board South Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

….Respondents

(By Advocates: Sri K.Ravi Krishnakanth, Addl. CGSC) *****

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

O R D E R (ORAL) PER: HON’BLE MR. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

In the instant OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief: “..to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant and offer appointment to the post of Health & Malaria Inspector/Gr.II in Rs.35,400/-, pursuant to the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Recruitment Boards, Centralized Employment Notice No.02/2019 dated 23.02.2019 Category No.06 of RRB/Secunderabad on par with the candidates appointed pursuant to the notification by setting aside the rejection of his candidature by 3rd respondent vide Provisional list vide No. RRB/SC/607/2-16/CEN/02-2019 Dated 06.11.2019 with all consequential benefits and pass such further orders to meet the ends of justice, award cost and thus render justice.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant applied for the post of Health and Malaria Inspector Grade III.

2.1 The minimum educational qualification as per the relevant Recruitment Rules is as under: “B.Sc. having studied Chemistry as Main /Optional subject in any branch of Chemistry while undertaking the course. Plus (a) One year Diploma of Health/Sanitary Inspector (OR)

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

(b) One year National Trade Certificate (NTC) in Health Sanitary Inspector awarded by National Council for Vocational Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi.”

2.2 The counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the Graduation Degree obtained from Andhra University, where the applicant is stated to have studied Chemistry in Part-II. The applicant has undergone a Diploma in Public Health & Sanitation Technology from the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, in the Session 2011-2012, for that, he was issued a Diploma certificate on 15.05.2013. He has also placed the Statement of Marks on record. The applicant was shortlisted in the selection process and was called for document verification. His candidature is stated to be rejected vide the impugned communication of result, dt.06.11.2019, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present case.

2.3 Learned counsel submits that no reason has been assigned for rejection. However, he submits that, in the counter affidavit, for the first time, it has been stated that the candidature of the applicant was rejected based on Railway Board RBE No.27/2014 and Lr.No.E(NG-II/99/RR-1/91, dt.18.03.2014, which clarified that : “the certificates of Diploma in Public Health & Sanitation Technology awarded by Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi and Diploma in Health & Sanitary Inspection awarded by Vinayaka Mission University, Salem, Tamilnadu cannot be accepted in lieu of the prescribed qualification for direct recruitment from open market to the post of Health and Malaria Inspector (H&MI) Grade-III.”

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

2.4 The counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Madras in OA.No.976/2015 decided on 08.03.2016, wherein it has been decided that – “5. The point for consideration is as to whether the applicant who is admittedly empanelled candidate for the post of Health and Malaria Inspector under the Railways could be appointed based on the certificates issued by the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents could not carve out an exception regarding this case of the applicant pending before this forum from the case decided by the CAT, Hyderabad on 18.11.2015 in OA 806/2013, a portion of which is extracted supra. It is well know that unless this Bench is having a different opinion based on Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court decision, the co-ordinate Bench's decision cannot be re-sailed from in deciding this case. The facts involved in this case is verbatim the same as the one involved in OA 806/2013 decided by the CAT, Hyderabad.

7. Hence in that view of the matter, this OA is allowed to the effect that the respondent Railway Administration taking into consideration the said certificates produced by the applicant process the matter further for giving appointment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

2.5 He also referred to the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in WP.No.2673/2017, which is as under: “4.When the similarly situated persons like that of the second respondent herein have been granted the relief in O.A.No.806 of 2013 dated 18.11.2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the appellants could not carve out an exception regarding the case of the second respondent alone. Further the learned senior counsel for the appellants has conceded that the said order passed by the Central

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad has been complied with. In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.”

2.6 The said matter was taken on SLP.No.11095/2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass the following order: “In the peculiar facts of this case, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving the question of law open.

It is made clear that this order shall be restricted to the facts of this case. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.”

3. The counsel for the respondents opposed to grant of relief, justifying the action taken on the basis of the pleadings made in the counter affidavit. He submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is in personam and cannot be applied in rem. 3.1 The learned counsel for the respondents highlights that – “The issue was referred to Health directorate of this Ministry, where a meeting was held by 4 doctors including Executive Director/Health to discuss and analyze the syllabus as directed by the Hon'ble Court. After going into details of the syllabus, they were of the opinion that it is not possible to decide the suitability of a course based solely upon the syllabus issued by the Institute. Suitability of a course depends upon a number of factors like, the infrastructure available with the institute, Teaching Faculty, Practical and field training, adherence to the schedule, assessment procedure of the candidates, etc. Because of these complexities only government or government recognized Institutes are considered for employment in Railways. At the same lime they were of the view that the syllabus of the course from the said

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

institute would equip the candidate adequately to discharge duties of H&MI-III), and Malaria Inspector as the syllabus covers majority of aspects of the working of Health and Malaria Inspectors in Railways.

This Ministry, way back in the year 2008 had examined the issue of recognition or otherwise of Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology by Institute of Public Health and, Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi. In consultation with Health Die, and a conscious decision was taken not to accept the same. Further to this, general instructions were issued on 18.3.2014 clarifying the zonal Railways not to accept the same. As regards, the Hon'ble Courts order dated 3.7.2014, though the syllabus and course content of the diploma course of the said Institute equips a person to perform the job of Health & Malaria Inspector, keeping in view the above, it would not be possible to recognize and accept the candidature of candidates in possession of the Diploma course in question from the said institution. Accordingly, I am of the firm opinion that it would not be possible to accept the candidature of candidates in possession of Diploma course from the said Institute for employment on the Railways, as the institute in question was not recognized by this Ministry."

x

x

x However, the candidature of the applicant in this OA No.600 of 2020 Shri Guthula Hanumath Prasad was rejected based on Railway Board's letter dated 18.03.2014 in which a clarification was given and it has been decided by the Railway Board, that the certificate produced by the applicant during Document Verification was not valid for appointment in Railways for the post of Health and Malaria Inspector, Grade-III. The Railway Board being the apex decision making authority in Railways, the directions and instructions are to be strictly adhered to and followed.

x

x

x In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that AICTE, vide their letter dated 12.08.2013, had clarified that the policy of AICTE on

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

Distant Education has been "not to recognize the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at Diploma, Bachelors & Master's level in the fields of Engineering, Technology, Architecture, Town planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Post graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM).

x

x

x As detailed above, one similarly situated case, in which the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati has passed orders in favor of Railways and the petitioner has filed SLP No.2535-2536/2024 pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and one more similarly situated case, the Learned ASG has opined that the case is fit for filing SLP arising out of common order dated 12.02.2024 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 12597-12602/2017 [case of Govinda Rao Sarakkanam Vs Union of India]”

3.2 He further produced on record the clarification regarding the educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Health & Malaria Inspector, Grade-III in Pay Band of Rs. 9300–34800 (Grade Pay: Rs.4200), vide RBE No.27/2014, dt.18.03.2014.

4. Having heard and perusing the records of the case.

5. Analysis 5.1 Regarding the issue previously mentioned, the primary consideration for review is whether the possession of a B.Sc. degree in Chemistry alongside a Diploma in Public Health & Sanitation Technology satisfies the specific educational criteria mandated by the Recruitment Rules.

5.2 Despite the strong objections raised by the respondents concerning educational requirements, this matter is addressed by the clarification provided in

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

RBE.No.27/2014, dated 18.03.2014, along with the follow-up clarification dated 12.10.2026, which was formally submitted to the record on 13.10.2026.

5.3 We noticed the observation made in the earlier round of litigation in OA.No.1430/2015, vide dt.23.03.2016, which reads as follows - “8. We have gone through the order dated 18.11.2015 passed in OA No.806/2013 and order dated 30.10.2013 passed in OA No.1360/2012. In both OAs, the issue was whether the Diploma certificate issued by the Public Health & Hygiene, New Delhi can be considered as necessary qualification as notified by the Respondents in the notification dated 01.11.2014. This Tribunal held in OA No.1360/2012 that Diploma Certificate awarded by Institute of Public Health & Hygiene is equivalent to one year Diploma prescribed for the post of Health & Sanitary Inspector. For better appreciation, we may refer to para-11 and 12 of the order passed in OA No.1360/2012 and they are thus:- "11. In OA 806/2013, when the applicant questioned the validity of Diploma in Public Health & Sanitation Technology awarded by Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, New Delhi, the respondent authorities have filed their reply stating that there are no instructions from the Railway Board to Railway Recruitment Board, Secunderabad that the Diploma in Public Health & Sanitation Technology by the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, New Delhi is not acceptable. They also further stated that RRB is not in receipt of any instructions regarding derecognition. From this it is clear that the authorities have accepted the Diploma certificate in Public Health & Sanitation Technology by the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, New Delhi in the case of others. As such the reason furnished by the respondents in the impugned order for rejecting the eligibility of the applicant on production of Diploma certificate in Public Health & Sanitation Technology by the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi in lieu of one year Diploma in Health & Sanitary Inspector is not at all valid and justified.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

12. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.11.2012 wherein rejecting the Diploma in Public Health & Sanitation Technology awarded by Public Health & Hygiene, New Delhi submitted by the applicant is equivalent to one year Diploma of one year Diploma in Health & Sanitary Inspector prescribed as one of the qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Health & Malaria, Gr.III on the Railways is quashed and set aside with a direction to the authorities to finalize the selection of the applicant by treating the Diploma certificate produced by the applicant as equivalent to one year Diploma in Health & Sanitary Inspector as one of the qualification for the post, granting six weeks time to the respondents for compliance."

9. In view of the adjudication of the issue involved in this OA in the above referred Original Applications, this OA is disposed of setting aside the rejection order in so far as the applicant is concerned for the post of Health Inspector Gr.III. Respondents are directed to consider the applicant's case for being appointed as Health Inspector Gr.III."

5.4 It is relevant to note the observation made by this Tribunal in OA.No.806/2013, which reads thus - “8(v) The private respondents have also cited the order of Chennai Bench of C.A.T. in OA.1102 to 1107/2013 dated 03.07.2014, the details of which are as follows : The applicants in these OAs had responded to the same Employment Notification as the case in this OA i.e. Notification No.6/2010 dated 13.03.2010 for the same post of Health & Malaria Inspector Gr-III. All of them were successful in the written examination and were accordingly waiting for formal posting orders, but no posting orders were issued. On inquiry it was found that the official respondents vide letter dated 20.05.2013 sought clarification from the RRB Chairperson, Chennai, in regard to the educational qualification for the said post and pointing out that the currency of the panel was only up to 29.08.2013. However there was no response. In the meanwhile several candidates lower in the merit list were issued posting orders. Several candidates who had obtained diploma from the said Institute had been given appointment to the post in S.C.Railway and other zonal railways. The respondents in their reply indicated that

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

before issuing of the appointment order it was noticed by the Appointing Authority that the applicants were not holding the prescribed educational qualification as notified in the Employment Notice i.e. B.Sc. (Chemistry) plus one year Diploma in Health/Sanitary Inspector or one year National Trade Certificate (NTC) awarded by the NCVT, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi could only apply for the post. The qualification has been laid down in para 163 (2) (I) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol.I On perusal/verification of the credentials of the 85 candidates in the panel that 9 candidates were having Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology from the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi which is the subject matter of the OA, and could not be accepted in lieu of one year Diploma in Health/Sanitary Inspector prescribed as one of the qualifications for direct recruitment to the said post as directed by Railway Board vide letter dated 04.06.2008 A reference was made to the RRB Chairman, Chennai vide letter dated 12.10.2012. As it was noticed that another 10 candidates were found to be in possession of Diploma in Health & Sanitary Inspector awarded by Vinayaka Mission University, Salem obtained through the Directorate of Distance Education Programme, the Railway Board was addressed by the office of GM (P), Southern Railway for advice as to how these two cases have to be treated. The Railway Board in their reply dated 05.08.2013 advised that the instructions contained in their earlier letter dated 04.06.2008 be followed and that in regard to the 10 candidates in possession of Diploma in Health & Sanitary Inspector awarded by Salem University was under examination. They also stated that as the candidates like the applicants who were not in possession of the prescribed qualification for discharging duties attached to the post, they could not be appointed. In para-7 of the order reference has been made to the order of this Tribunal in OA.1360/2012 filed by TGN Munidra Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors and in the case of N.Nandakishore Vs. UOI & Ors. in OA.20/2013 dated 22.11.2013 by Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal. Both the OAs were allowed on the ground that the decision of the Railway Board conveyed in letter dated 04.06.2008 was not followed for a number of candidates who studied the same course from the same Institutions, but were given appointment and accordingly its application to the case of the applicants in the said OAs tantamounted to discrimination and they set aside the impugned order

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

whereby their candidature was rejected with a direction that they should be given appointment to the said post. In para-9 of the judgement it was observed that, the decision in the aforementioned cases rendered by Hyderabad and Bangalore Benches of this Tribunal on the same issue were not on examination of law /merits and no ratio has been laid down, but on the basis of equity, that is, inasmuch as in the case of some candidates, the same Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology awarded by the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi was accepted (in lieu of one year Diploma in Health/Sanitary Inspector) and they were selected/appointed, the authorities could not discriminate against the applicants. The crucial question which was raised in the order was whether the said Diploma from the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi should or should not be accepted in lieu of one year Diploma in Health/Sanitary Inspector prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Health & Malaria Inspector, Gr-III which had not been addressed in any of the cases referred to. C.A.T. Chennai held that, "the question of law has to be decided first". Further that in Raghunath Raj Bareja and another Vs. Punjab National Bank and others it has been held that when there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail, in accordance with the Latin maxim, "dura lex sed lex", which means "the law is hard, but it is the law". Equity can only supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override law. The Chennai Bench accordingly held that the Railway Board does not appear to have examined this issue by experts by a comparing the syllabus of the courses with reference to the nature of job performed by the Health and Malaria Inspector, Gr-III in Railways. Further, none of the parties in this case has produced any order/decision of Court on the issue of declaration of equivalence or otherwise. C.A.T., Chennai bench held that it is, therefore, imperative that the question of whether Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology from the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene and Sanitation Technology, Gr-III is got examined by the Railway Board properly by experts after obtaining from the Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, New Delhi details of the course/syllabus of Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology to see whether it is not inferior to the Diploma in Health /Sanitary Inspector and equips the candidates well to discharge the duties of Health and Malaria Inspector, Gr-III in the Railways. "Further that the claim of the

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

applicants in the instant OA should be decided after this study and having regard to the fact that some others possessing the same qualification were selection and appointed in the Railways.

9. In compliance of the above order of the C.A.T. Chennai, the Railway Board constituted a Committee to decide the above issue. A meeting was held to discuss and examine the syllabus in Diploma in Public Health and Sanitation Technology from the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, New Delhi vis-a-vis its suitability for the post of Health & Malaria Inspector in Railways. The Committee members went through the syllabus in detail as well as the duties of Health and Malaria Inspector as given in Indian Railway Medical Manual 2000. The members came to the conclusion that as far as the syllabus is concerned it covers majority of aspects of the working of Health & Malaria Inspector in Railways.

10. From the above it is clear that as per the directions given to the Railway Board, the experts committee held that the syllabus of the course in question covered most of the aspects of the duties and responsibilities of a Health & Malaria Inspector and accordingly the inference is that the applicants possessing Diploma from the said Institutes were academically equipped to discharge the duties of the said post. "

The aforesaid para clearly demonstrates that the Expert Committee constituted by the respondents themselves had held that the Diploma in question is accepted as an educational qualification at the relevant point of time.

5.5 Although the legal question was not definitively settled during the previous litigation phases, the Hon’ble Madras High Court resolved the matter in WP.No.2673/2017 by applying principles of equity based on the specific circumstances of the case. While the unresolved legal question must eventually be determined by the Apex Court rather than any other judicial body or

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

Tribunal, the fact that this point of law remains open does not prevent the current issue from being decided. The respondents could not have overlooked the decision of the expert committee appointed by them, which considered the diploma in question. There is no change in circumstances or RR’s.

5.6 In W.P.(C) 2339/2025, CM APPL. 11024/2025 & CM APPL. 11025/2025 -GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. versus INDER JIT DUA decided on 24.02.2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:- “37. We may note that the decision in L.K. Bahl travelled to the Supreme Court and the SLP against the said decision was also dismissed, albeit keeping the question of law open. We have, in our recent decision in SSC v Darpan Sharma16 examined the implication of dismissal of an appeal by keeping the question of law open. Paras 16 to 19 of the said decision may be reproduced thus: “16. We are conscious of the fact that, in its final order dated 30 July 2019, the Supreme Court left the question of law, arising before it, open. That, however, according to us, only means that the Supreme Court did not pronounce on the question of law that arose before it. The implication of the Supreme Court leaving the question of law open was only, therefore, that the Supreme Court has not pronounced on the question of law which arose in the SLP, one way or the other. That, however, does not, in any way, lessen the precedential value of the judgment of the High Court. When, in the case of a candidate situated identically to the respondent in the present case, relief was granted by the High Court, and the grant of the said relief was performed by the Supreme Court, there can be no two views on the fact that the respondent would be entitled to the same relief. Else, it would result in a situation in which two persons, identically situated, had been accorded differential treatment by Courts, which is obviously unthinkable in law.

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

17. On the implication of a question of law being left open by the Supreme Court, while dismissing an appeal or a Special Leave Petition, a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Collector v Liquidator Petrofills Cooperative. Ltd.17, ruled thus: “27. When the Supreme Court records that the question of law is kept open, undoubtedly it is meant to be reconsidered in future by the Supreme Court only. The question of law, as correctly contended by Shri P. Chidambaram, is not kept open for the High Court. This is precisely what was held and observed by the Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in Tax Appeal No. 380/2013 dated 9/12/2013. We are in full agreement with the view expressed therein. It was a case where an issue of unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was raised by the Revenue before the High Court. An identical issue was already decided by the High Court in case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax18 by allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the order of the Commissioner. The judgment of the High Court was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP making it clear that the question of law is kept open. When a similar question came up before the High Court in the Tax Appeal, the Revenue argued that when the Supreme Court has left the question of law open, it would be open for the High Court to reconsider the issue regardless of the judgment of another Division Bench in case of General Motors Pvt. Ltd.v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax19. It was in this background, Division Bench made the following observations: “10. Now so far as the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue that though against the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), as such, Special Leave to Appeal was preferred before the Honble Supreme Court and the same came to be dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court on the ground of delay and kept the question of law open, this Court may consider the question of law raised on merits is concerned, the same

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that as such, consideration of the question raised with respect to set off of unabsorbed depreciation on merits, there is a direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd.vDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra). Against the said decision, the Special Leave to Appeal was preferred and the same came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and the Honble Supreme Court kept the question of law open. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said question of law is kept open by the Honble Supreme Court to consider subsequently by this Court Coordinate Bench. It can be said that the said question of law is kept open by the Honble Supreme Court to consider subsequently in other cases by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So far as this Court is concerned, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) is binding unless a contrary view is taken and the matter is referred to the Larger Bench. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd. v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned ITAT while passing the impugned judgment and order, as such, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises now.”

28. We are in full agreement with the view so expressed and in our understanding brings about a correct legal position. When a question of law is kept open by the Supreme Court not entertaining a SLP against the judgment of the High Court, in fact, what is done is neither to confirm nor to dilute the ratio of the judgment under challenge. That however, does not mean that the High Court in a future case is allowed to take a fresh view ignoring the law of precedence. It only means that the Supreme Court refused to bind itself or put its seal on the ratio propounded by the High Court in the judgment under challenge. Therefore, when an identical question comes up before the same High Court and is presented for consideration before a Bench of coordinate strength, by virtue of principles of law of precedence, the Bench would be bound by the ratio of the earlier judgment of the High Court, unless persuaded to refer it to a larger Bench. This is precisely what has been recorded by the

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

Division Bench in the said case and this is why the Bench was of the opinion that it had either to follow the ratio in case of General Motors or make a reference to the larger Bench. This per-se however, would not mean that the review consideration is shut out, if the review is otherwise maintainable. Normally, in almost all the cases, the same Bench would be reconsidering the matter on the grounds raised in the review petition. If in the process, it is found that the proposition of law laid down suffers from some error apparent on face of the record, review certainly would be available. In other words, if a decision has become final, it would continue to bind the Bench of coordinate strength of the same High Court in future though in SLP the Supreme Court it might have been observed that the question of law is kept open. But when a review petition comes before the same Bench, it is the judgment in review which is being criticised. It would have the same limitations as in any other case of review where SLP may not have been filed. Nothing more nothing less. In other words, the expression “question of law is kept open” does not put any additional fetters on the High Court exercising review powers.

18. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the above views expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat.

19. Inasmuch as the Supreme Court has upheld the grant of relief to the petitioner before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and there is no substantial difference between the error committed by the Petitioner before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the present respondent, in our view, keeping in mind the order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner would be entitled to similar relief. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, which so holds.”

38. Thus, the issue in question has attained finality up to the Supreme Court. “

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

5.7 It can be observed that, regarding the previous notification dated 01.11.2014, eligible candidates, including the present applicant, submitted online applications for the Health and Malaria Inspector Gr.III position and successfully passed the written test. Nevertheless, following the document verification process, their applications were dismissed via the contested rejection order without providing specific justifications. The rationale regarding the non-recognition of their respective certificates was subsequently elaborated upon within the counter affidavit.

5.8 Furthermore, it is significant to observe that while the respondents heavily relied on Railway Board RBE No.27/2014 to justify the rejection of the applicant's candidacy, they failed to address paragraph 9 of the order in OA.No.806/2013 cited above. In that instance, the respondents themselves established the expert committee, and the current reply statement offers no justification or opposing view to challenge the committee's finding that candidates holding Diplomas from the aforementioned Institutes possessed the academic qualifications necessary to perform the post's duties. Consequently, no evidence has been provided to successfully contest the validity of the Diploma at issue.

5.9 Regarding the application of this clarification to the current circumstances, it is noted that independent notification No. 02/2019 was released on 23.02.2019. Through this, the respondents had the opportunity to exercise their judgment to resolve the disputes surrounding the status and qualification of the degree/diploma at center stage. The respondents bore the responsibility to

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA

explicitly specify within the advertisement itself that the Diploma in Public Health & Sanitation Technology from the Institute of Public Health & Hygiene, Mahipalpur, New Delhi, held by the applicant, would not be recognized as a valid qualification for the Health & Malaria Inspector Gr.III position. Since they failed to provide such clarity, they are now precluded from claiming that the applicant is ineligible for the role. To prevent further needless legal disputes, it is essential that the respondents formally restrict the acceptance of this specific diploma course in upcoming examinations.

6. CONCLUSION

In view of the above discussion(s), respondents are directed to offer an appointment to the applicant subject to the fulfillment of other eligibility conditions in terms of notification, dt.23.02.2019, as one post is kept vacant by way of an interim order, the same shall be applied. The above exercise has to be completed within a period of two months. At this juncture, the applicant shall be entitled to the notional benefits, including seniority and actual benefits, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The OA is allowed under the above terms. IR granted on 30.09.2020, made absolute. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi)

(Manish Garg) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

13.10.2026

/ps/

Location:

PANDIRLAPA LLI SANDHYA