Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1072 (HP)

PRADEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-11-18

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners joined State Council for Vocational Training (SCVT) courses. They completed their courses in the month of November, 2005. They were issued original-cum-character certificate. The State Government has decided to fill up the posts of Pump Operators. The names of the petitioners were also sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for the posts of Pump Operators. The petitioners were not found eligible as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules called “Himachal Pradesh Department of Irrigation and Public Health, Pump Operator Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2006” framed by the respondent-State under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The minimum qualification prescribed is that a candidate should be a matriculate from a recognized Board of School Education/Institute or its equivalent from a recognized University/Board and should possess certificate in trades of Electrician/Wireman diesel Mechanic/Pump Mechanic/Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic from a recognized Industrial Training Institute (ITI). 2. Mr. Divender Sharma, Advocate has vehemently argued that his clients were fully eligible and qualified as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the posts of Pump Operators. He then contended that the Selection Committee has arbitrarily rejected their candidature. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioners were not in possession of the requisite essential qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, thus, they were not eligible. He then contended that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules are to be followed scrupulously. He lastly contended that no foundation has been laid by the petitioners why the Superintending Engineer could not be the Members of the Selection Committee. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It has come in the reply that the scrutiny committee has rejected the candidature of the petitioners No.1 and 8 at the initial stage since they were not possessing the essential qualifications. These two petitioners were not interviewed. Petitioners No. 2 to7 were considered for viva-voce, however, they were not found eligible being not in possession of minimum essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 6. We are of the considered view that the appointment to the post of Pump Operator is required to be made strictly as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The petitioners have not obtained their diplomas/certificates from the recognized ITIs. 6. We are of the considered view that the appointment to the post of Pump Operator is required to be made strictly as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The petitioners have not obtained their diplomas/certificates from the recognized ITIs. The petitioners have also not led any foundation why the Superintending Engineers were disqualified to be the Members of the Committee. The appointing authority for the post of Pump Operator is Superintending Engineer. 7. Mr. R.K. Sharma also submitted that pursuant to the selection process the candidates have already been appointed and the petitioners have not assailed their appointments. Accordingly, the petition is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.