Union Of India v. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI AND WMP No.10853 of 2024 Union of India Rep.by the Chairman Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai No.5 Dr.P.V.Cherian Crescent Salai Egmore, Chennai 600 008 Petitioner Vs

1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai 600 104

2. S.Ramachandran No.946/G, New Diesel Colony Railway Quarters Ponmalaipatti 620 004 Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the file of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned order in O.A.No.968 of 2022 dated 29.11.2023 and quash the same.

For Petitioner:

Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar Senior Panel Counsel For Respondents:

R1 - Tribunal No appearance for R2

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.) The Union of India represented by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in O.A.No.968 of 2022, in and by which the claim of the second respondent has been directed to be considered by the competent authorities of the Railways in the next immediate vacancy that arises for the post of Staff & Welfare Inspector.

2. Though notice has been served on the second respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no appearance either in person or through counsel.

3. The second respondent filed the original application before the Tribunal challenging the impugned communication dated 09.05.2022 issued by the petitioner rejecting his candidature for the post of Staff & Welfare Inspector for want of the prescribed qualification from the recognized University, though he came out successful in the computer based online examination and was shortlisted for document verification. However, the Tribunal, recording the submission made by the concerned officer that the panel has already been exhausted, directed the competent authority to consider the claim of the second respondent for appointment in the ensuing vacancy. Aggrieved by the said

order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that though the second respondent was provisionally called for certificate verification on 24.05.2022, when the certificate produced by the second respondent for having acquired the Diploma in Labour Law from Periyar University in the year 2018 came to be verified, it was found that the programme offered by Periyar University through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode for the year 2017-18 was not approved by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, the candidature of the second respondent was rejected, as he was ineligible for the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector. However, the Tribunal erroneously acceded to his request and granted the relief in favour of the second respondent. The learned Senior Panel Counsel also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of University Grants Commission represented by its Secretary and another v. Annamalai University represented by its Registrar and others, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 567 in support of his submission.

5. Heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the second respondent acquired the Diploma in

Labour Law from Periyar University through the Open and Distance Learning mode in the year 2018 and produced the said certificate for consideration of his claim to the post of Staff and Welfare Inspector. When the said certificate was verified by the petitioner while calling the second respondent for certificate verification on 24.05.2022, it was found that the said programme offered by Periyar University was not approved by the University Grants Commission for the year 2017-18. Therefore, the petitioner has rightly rejected the candidature of the second respondent, as the diploma qualification acquired by him during the year 2018 was not approved by the University Grants Commission and thus he is not eligible to hold the post. Though a public notice dated 27.05.

2022 was also issued by the University Grants Commission cautioning the general public, students and other stakeholders not to take admission in any programme offered by Periyar University through ODL mode, in view of the absence of recognition of the programmes by the UGC, the Tribunal, after citing the aforesaid circular, has erroneously allowed the claim of the second respondent. Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of University Grants Commission represented by its Secretary and another v.

Annamalai University represented by its Registrar and others, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 567, while upholding the right and primacy of the University Grants Commission to impose Regulations for conduct of distance education programmes, has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Bharathiar University, Periyar University, Bharathidasan University and Madras University on the issue.

7. In the light of the above, this Court finds that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and warrants interference. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed. No costs.

(P.VELMURUGAN J.) (K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.) 12-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ss To

1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai 600 104

2. The Chairman Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai No.5 Dr.P.V.Cherian Crescent Salai Egmore, Chennai 600 008

P.VELMURUGAN J.

AND K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.

ss 12-03-2026