Full Text
Through: Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuldeep S.
Parihar, Advocate and Mr. H.S.
Parihar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms. Pragya Verma, Standing counsel for respondent No.3/UOI.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming a direction against the respondent No.1/employer/Reserve Bank of India to permit the petitioner for appearing in the examination for Research Officers. The petitioner is presently working as a Coin-Note Examiner.
2. It is undisputed that the qualifications which are required for 2013:DHC:1102 appearing for the post of Research Officer are as under:- “(b) Educational Qualification (as on 01/02/2003): Essential: (i) Master’s Degree in Statistics/Mathematical Statistics/Mathematical Economics/ Econometrics with a minimum of 55% marks or an equivalent grade OR (ii) A Master’s Degree in Mathematics with a minimum of 55% marks or an equivalent grade and one year Post-graduate Diploma in Statistics or related subjects from an institute of repute OR (iii) M. Stat. Degree of Indian Statistical Institute with a minimum of 55% marks.”
3. On a query, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has got a Master’s degree in Mathematical Statistics and therefore the petitioner was entitled to appear for the examination of Research Officer.
4. When asked to show the degree of the University whereby the petitioner has got the Master’s degree in Mathematical Statistics, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out on record a Master’s degree in Mathematical Statistics. What is only pointed out to me is mark sheet of the petitioner who appeared as a M.Sc. Mathematics student with one subject as Statistics. Surely, appearing in M.Sc. Mathematics with a subject in Statistics is much different than having a Master’s degree in Mathematical Statistics. Also, the qualification in question specifically provides for a different category qua a Master’s degree in Mathematics and with respect to such qualification a person can only be considered for appearing in the examination of Research Officer when such person additionally has one year Post-graduate Diploma in Statistics. Admittedly, nothing has been filed on record nor pleaded that petitioner has any Post-graduate Diploma in Statistics.
5. Counsel for the petitioner then finally contended that petitioner is entitled to appear for examination because one Mr. M.V. Bhaskaran who only had a Master’s degree in Mathematics has been allowed to appear in examination of Research Officers, and if the petitioner is not allowed to appear this will tantamount to discrimination against the petitioner because Mr. M.V. Bhaskaran also had only a Master’s degree in Mathematics like the petitioner.
6. The contention, in this regard, of the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived because when we refer to the appointment of Mr. M.V. Bhaskaran as a Research Officer it shows that the appointment is of the year 1984 and the petitioner is seeking appointment as a Research Officer for the advertisement which has been given in the year 2006. There is nothing in the record of this writ petition as to what were the qualifications for appearing in the examination of Research Officers in the year 1984 when Mr. M.V. Bhaskaran was appointed. When asked to point out at least an averment in the writ petition that at the relevant time in the year 1984 the recruitment rules were same as existing in the year 2006 for a Research Officer, counsel for the petitioner could not point out even to one averment, leave aside the issue of filing of documents showing qualification for being appointed as a Research Officer in the year 1984.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J FEBRUARY 28, 2013 Ne