Adhikari Pariksha certificates issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya until 2008 are valid High School equivalents.

The applicant responded to the Railway Recruitment Cell’s advertisement dated 30 December 2013 for recruitment to Group ‘D’ posts and was selected for the post of Carriage Cleaner after clearing the selection stages.

He was issued an offer of appointment and called for document verification, which he attended.

His candidature was subsequently rejected by communication dated 21/22 June 2016 on the ground that his Class X/“Adhikari Pariksha” certificate, issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, was not issued by a recognised Board for Railway appointment.

The applicant contended that he had passed the examination in 2008 and that, until that year, the qualification was recognised as equivalent to the High School examination of the Uttar Pradesh Board.

The respondents relied upon the alleged non-recognition of the institution by the Council of Boards of School Education in India (COBSE) and maintained that selection and document verification did not create an indefeasible right to appointment.

The applicant challenged the rejection before the Tribunal in 2017.

Whether the “Adhikari Pariksha” certificate issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, in 2008 was a valid qualification equivalent to the High School examination for the purpose of Railway appointment.

Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s candidature solely on the ground that Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya was not recognised by COBSE, despite the Full Bench decision in Dhanpal v. State of U.P. recognising such certificates up to 2008.

Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment or other consequential relief notwithstanding the passage of time and the possibility that the vacancies under the 2013 recruitment had already been filled.

The Tribunal applied the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Dhanpal v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A No. 48208 of 2012, decided on 9 October 2013, which held that an “Adhikari Pariksha” certificate issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, up to 2008, with English as one of the subjects and completed in one year, was a valid qualification equivalent to High School, notwithstanding the subsequent declaration of the institution as a fake university by the UGC.

The Full Bench further held that the equivalence earlier granted by the U.P. Board under Sections 7 and 15 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, created an enduring right that could not be retrospectively extinguished merely by deleting the relevant entry from the Regulations.

The Tribunal also relied on its earlier decision in Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Union of India & Others, OA No. 938 of 2014, which held that reliance solely on COBSE certification was insufficient and directed appointment where the applicant’s selection was otherwise unquestioned.

The applicant’s certificate was obtained in 2008, the relevant period during which the Full Bench in Dhanpal held that the Adhikari Pariksha qualification from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya was equivalent to High School.

The respondents’ documents, including the COBSE communication dated 14 August 2026 and the Railway Board’s letter dated 8 October 2013, did not establish that the institution lacked recognition during the year 2008; they merely addressed recognition generally or for later periods.

Since the applicant’s candidature was rejected solely for want of recognition of the issuing institution, and that basis was inconsistent with the binding Full Bench ruling, the rejection was legally unsustainable.

Although selection and document verification did not by themselves confer an absolute right to appointment, the applicant could not be denied consideration on an invalid ground.

In view of the delay, the Tribunal moulded the relief by directing fresh consideration and adjustment against an existing suitable vacancy if the original vacancies had been filled.

The competent authority was directed to take a fresh decision and issue the applicant an offer of appointment to the post for which he had been selected within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

If all vacancies under the 2013 recruitment had been filled, the applicant was to be considered for adjustment against an existing suitable vacancy, subject to eligibility and fitness.

He was also held entitled to seniority vis-à-vis candidates selected in the same recruitment according to his merit position, but not to back wages or monetary benefits for the period during which he had not actually worked.

No order as to costs was made, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.