R.Naveen Raj v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR R.Naveen Raj ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Union of India Rep by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, South Blocm, DHQ (Po) New Delhi 110 001
2. The Director General of Personnel / CSCC Engineer - in - Chief Branch IHQ of Mod (Army) Kshmir House DHQ (PO) New Delhi 110 001
3. The Chief Engineer HQ southern command, Pune 411 001
4. The Chief Engineer HQ Chennai Zone, Island Grounds, Chenani 600 009
5. The Commander Works Engineer Wellington 643 231 The Nilgiris
6. The Garrison Engineer Wellington 643 231 The Nilgiris
7. The Garrison Engineer,DSSC Wellington 643 231 The Nilgiris
8. Shri A. Mathews Mate (Pipe Fitter)
O/o The garrison Engineer Wellington 643 231 The Nilgiris
9. G. Illaiyaraja Mate (Pipe Fitter) O/o The Garrison Engineer, Wellington 643 231 The Nilgiris ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to O.A. No.310/ 00830/ 2017 order dated 08.09.2025 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, quash the same and direct the 5th respondent to appoint the petitioner for the post of Mate (Pipe Fitter) with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.R.Meenal For Respondent(s):
Mr.G.Gowri Shankar , Senior Panel Counsel for R1
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 08.09.2025 in O.A. No.310/ 00830/ 2017.
2. Original Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the writ petitioner before this Court. Appointment of respondents 8 and 9 to the post of Mate (Pipe Fitter) with effect from 20.03.2017 and with effect from 21.03.2017 respectively came to be challenged before the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
3. The ground raised by the writ petitioners before Central Administrative Tribunal is that ITI passed certificate from the recognised institute in a relevant trade was not possessed by the respondents 8 and 9. Therefore, their appointment is invalid. With reference to the ground raised regarding qualification possessed by the respondents 8 and 9, Central Administrative Tribunal categorically found that post of Mate (Pipe Fitter) is governed by the Military Engineer Services Industrial Group "C" Tradesman Mate (Semi-skilled) Posts Recruitment Rules, 2013. The requisite educational and other qualification for the Direct Recruitment to the post is as under, "SCHEDULE (7): Educational and other qualification required for direct recruitment Essential:- (I) Matriculation Pass from a recognised Board and Industrial Training Institute Pass certificate from a recognised Institute in relevant trade."
4. Writ Petitioner also participated along with respondents 8 and 9 in the process of selection. However, respondents 8 and 9 got Merit No.1 and 2 by securing 37.77 and 35.25 marks respectively, while the writ petitioner stood in the merit list with 33.79 marks. The only contention at that juncture raised by the writ petitioner is that respondents 8 and 9 did not possess the requisite qualification. In the event of eliminating respondents 8 and 9 on the ground of
qualification, his name will be considered for selection. In this regard, Central Administrative Tribunal found that the recruitment rules provides "ITI passed certificate from the recognised Institute in a relevant trade" as one of the essential qualification. The competent authority has provided objective criteria with respect to "what will constitute the relevant trade" for the post of Mate (Pipe Fitter) through an executive instruction. Executive Instructions are not running counter to the Recruitment Rules and it is only supplementing, and in that view of the matter the grounds raised by the writ petitioner was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the SC in the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey1 "17.
Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. Thus, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
1 2015 11 SCC 493
5. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner was not within the zone of consideration, and that apart qualification possessed by the respondents 8 and 9 are also in terms of the Recruitment Rules in force, petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of entertaining the writ petition.
6. Accordingly, order made in O.A. No.310/ 00830/ 2017 order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal stands confirmed and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 16-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD To
1. Union of India Rep by the Secretary to the Government of India, ministry of Defence, South Blocm, DHQ (Po) New Delhi 110 001
2. The Director General of Personnel / CSCC Engineer - in - Chief Branch IHQ of Mod (Army) Kshmir House DHQ (PO) New Delhi 110 001
3. The Chief Engineer HQ southern command, Pune 411 001
4. The Chief Engineer HQ Chennai Zone, Island Grounds, Chenani 600 009
5. The Commander Works Engineer Wellington 643 231 The Nilgiris
6. The Garrison Engineer Wellington 643 231 The Nilgiris
7. The Garrison Engineer,DSSC Wellington 643 231 The Nilgiris
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
GD 16-06-2026