Sonoo Kumar v. National Institute Of Electronics And Information Technology & ORS.

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + SONOO KUMAR .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Akash Deep Gupta, Adv.

versus NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal SPC, Mr. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal, Mr. Inderpreet Singh and Mr. Kunal Dixit, Advocates for UOI Ms. Pearl Sharma, Advocate for R4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 02.07.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1.

This writ petition has been preferred by Applicant 2 before the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 2262/2021, which stands dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 18 April 2023.

2.

Applicants 1 and 3 in the OA have not challenged the impugned order.

1 "Tribunal" hereinafter

3.

The issue before the Tribunal was as to whether the applicants before it possessed the requisite educational qualifications for appointment as Scientist-B in the National Informatics Centre, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The prescribed educational qualification read thus:

"a) Educational qualification: 1. Scientist - 'B' A pass Bachelor Degree in Engineering OR Bachelor in Technology OR Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses B-level OR Associate Member of Institute of Engineers OR Graduate Institute of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers OR Master Degree in Science (MSc) OR Master Degree in Computer Application OR Master Degree in Engineering/Technology (ME/M.Tech) OR Master Degree in Philosophy (M.Phil) in the field as mentioned below:- Field (single or in combination amongst the below only): Electronics, Electronics and Communication, Computer Sciences, Communication, Computer and Networking Security, Computer Application, Software System, Information Technology, Information Technology Management, Informatics, Computer Management, Cyber Law, Electronics and Instrumentation."

4.

The petitioner held a Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Telecommunications. Before the Tribunal, it was sought to be contended that a Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Telecommunications could also treated as a Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Communication as Telecommunications was but one of the fields of Communications. The Tribunal has, in our view correctly, not acceded to the request to treat the two qualifications as equivalent. Ergo, holding that the Bachelor's degree in Electronics and

Telecommunications cannot be treated as Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Communication, the Tribunal has held the applicants before it not to be entitled for recruitment as Scientist-B. 5.

Before us, Mr. Akash Deep Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner (Applicant 2 before the Tribunal) was also in possession of a Master's degree, in respect of which he has drawn our attention to a Course Completion Certificate issued by the Delhi Technological University where the petitioner had pursued his Master's course, which reads thus: "DTU/ECE/Certificate/2021-22/1270 Date: 29.09.2021 Course Completion Certificate This is to certify that Mr. Sonoo Kumar S/o Sh. Prabal Singh Roll no. 2K14/SPD/18 was a student of Electronics & Communication Engineering Department. He has completed his M.Tech in Signal Processing and Digital Design during the period 2014-18 and he has completed all his requirements for completion of M.Tech. degree course. This is issued for the purpose of interview in NIC for scientist B post."

6.

Mr. Gupta's contention is that, unlike a Bachelor's degree, an M. Tech is always given in a particular subject in the discipline or field in which the Master's degree is obtained. He, therefore, submits that the M. Tech in Signal Processing and Digital Design obtained by his client as a student of the Electronics & Communication Engineering Department was effectively an M. Tech in the field of Electronics and Communication Engineering, which satisfies the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Scientist-B. 7.

He has also drawn our attention to para 4.13 of OA filed by his

client before the Tribunal, which read thus:

"4.13 It is pertinent to mention here that apart from B.E. in Electronics and Telecommunication, the Applicant no. 2 was also a student of Electronics & Communication Engineering Department and has also his M. Tech in Signal Processing and Digital Design, which is a subject of Electronics and Communication Engineering, however, it was also not considered by the Respondent no. 1. The same was also highlighted in the email sent by the Applicant no. 2. A copy of the email sent by the Applicant no. 2 to the Respondent no. 1 has been attached herewith as Annxure-7."

8.

From the impugned order, it does not appear that this plea was specifically advanced before the Tribunal during arguments. 9.

Nonetheless, as the case deals with the entitlement of a candidate to appointment to public service, we deem it appropriate to allow the petitioner to urge this contention before the Tribunal and request the Tribunal to take a view thereon.

10.

Mr. Goyal, learned SPC for the respondent, fairly accedes to the request.

11.

Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition by allowing the petitioner to urge, before the Tribunal, the ground taken in para 4.13 of the OA as also ventilated before us.

12.

We request the Tribunal to take a view thereon as expeditiously as possible. In order to avoid delay, we direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 13 July 2026. Neither side would be entitled to seek adjournment on the said date.

13.

Needless to say, should either side be aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the remedies available in law in that regard would remain reserved.

14.

We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J VINOD KUMAR, J JULY 2, 2026/ss