Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1807 (RAJ)

Mohammad Zaheer Usta v. Secretary (Admn. )

2009-08-11

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C., the appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Appeal No.123/2005, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff affirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & Judl. Magistrate, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.236/2002. 2. Brief facts of the case are that after passing the Senior Secondary Examination (Vocational) in Electrical Branch from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1997, the appellant-plaintiff was selected by the Board of Apprenticeship Training, North Region which is sponsored by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India and the appellant was placed for apprenticeship training under the Zonal Chief Engineer, Rajasthan State Electricity Board. The appellant successfully completed the apprenticeship training on 09.09.1999 and a proficiency certificate was issued in his favour on 09.08.1999 by the Executive Engineer, R.S.E.B. As per the contention of the appellant-plaintiff, the training of apprenticeship is managed by the National Council and Regional Board of Apprenticeship. The National Council is awarding National Apprenticeship certificate and Board of Apprenticeship Training is awarding Certificate of Proficiency, therefore, both the certificates are equivalent certificates given under the Apprenticeship Act. 3. As per the appellant, respondent advertised vacancies for the posts of Sub Station Attendant and the appellant applied for it; but, he was not selected for the post on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Contention of the appellant is that his candidature was wrongly rejected on the ground that he does not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post. The minimum qualification for the post of Sub Station Attendant – II is National Apprenticeship Certificate, therefore, against the illegal action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the appellant for appointment on the post of Sub Station Attendant – II a suit was preferred by the appellantplaintiff but the learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the candidature of the appellant was rightly rejected because he is not possessing the basic qualification as required for the post of Sub Station Attendant – II. The said judgment and decree dated 22.11.2005 was further challenged before the first appellate Court but the learned lower appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court against which this appeal has been filed. 4. On 10.02.2009, while admitting the appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court : “(i) Whether the qualification of certificate in proficiency is same and equivalent to the qualification N.A.C. ? (ii) Whether the qualification of “certificate in proficiency” is higher then the qualification of industrial training institute (I.T.I.) ? (iii) Whether the R.S.E.B. is bound to follow direction given by the Central Government ministry of Human Resource Development (M.H.R.D.), Department of Education vide letter dated 6.5.1997? (iv) Whether the R.S.E.B. is bound to follow the direction given by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour on dated 15.3.1996 ?” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below is illegal and against the material on record. As per learned counsel for the appellant, the certificate for proficiency issued under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 is equivalent to the certificate issued by the National Council, qualification which is prescribed for the post, therefore, his candidature was wrongly rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant underwent the training in the R.S.E.B. and he was sponsored to acquire the training by the Ministry of Human Resources, Government of India, therefore, the respondent Board was under obligation to consider the said qualification to be equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the post of Sub Station Attendant – II; but, illegally it was not considered properly and learned trial Court, so also, the lower appellate Court while rejecting the claim of the appellant with regard to his eligibility for the post of Sub Station Attendant – II because he was possessing the certificate of proficiency which is said to be issued under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. 6. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted simply on the ground that in the advertisement issued by the Board for recruitment to Sub Station Attendant – II it was specifically mentioned that the candidate must possess the required qualification with 65% marks and, admittedly, even if the appellant's contention is accepted that his certificate of proficiency may be treated equivalent to N.A.C., he is required to show that he is possessing the said qualification with 65% marks. Further, it is argued that in the advertisement it is nowhere stated that any equivalent qualification will be considered for recruitment on the post of Sub Station Attendant – II, therefore, if the Board is not accepting any equivalent qualification, then, the Board cannot be compelled to accept the qualification which is claimed to be equivalent to the qualification advertised by the Board. In this view of the matter, no error has been committed by the learned trial Court or by the lower appellate Court while rejecting the appellant's claim pleaded in the suit filed by the appellant. 7. With regard to substantial questions of law framed by this Court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that even it is held by this Court that qualification of certificate of proficiency is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, the appellant is required to show that has passed the said qualification examination with 65% marks, therefore, the qualification held by the appellant cannot be treated to be equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, therefore, all the questions framed by this Court deserve to be answered in negative. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. 9. Admittedly, advertisement was issued by the Board for recruitment on the posts of Sub Station Attendant – II and, for the same, said advertisement was issued. In the advertisement, following qualification was prescribed : ^^'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk % bysDVªhf'k;u@,lch,@jsfM;k eSdsfud VªsM esa vkbZ-Vh-vkbZ-@,u-,-lh- dh ijh{kk esa lkekU; ,oa vks-ch-lh- oxZ ds fy, U;wure 65% ,oa vuq- tkfr@tutkrh ds fy, 55% izkIrkadA** 10. Upon perusal of the above qualification, it is revealed that it is nowhere mentioned that any candidature of any candidate possessing equivalent qualification will be accepted. Secondly, it is specifically stated that candidate must possess 65% marks in the prescribed qualification. Upon perusal of the above qualification, it is revealed that it is nowhere mentioned that any candidature of any candidate possessing equivalent qualification will be accepted. Secondly, it is specifically stated that candidate must possess 65% marks in the prescribed qualification. Admittedly, in the certificate of proficiency, it is nowhere stated that the appellant has acquired this certificate of proficiency with 65% marks. It is only mentioned that he has acquired training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961, therefore, in my opinion, when specific assertion has not been made in the advertisement, then, qualification of certificate of proficiency cannot be treated to be equivalent to N.A.C. Further, the certificate of proficiency cannot be equated with other qualification, therefore, question No.2 with regard to treating the certificate of proficiency higher than the qualification of Industrial Training Institute is irrelevant for deciding this appeal. 11. With regard to questions No.3 and 4, the employer has right to prescribe particular qualification for appointment and Board is autonomous body and has framed the relevant service rules, therefore, any decision taken by the Board for prescribing particular qualification for recruitment of most suitable candidates cannot be interfered with because it is within the domain of the statutory body to select suitable candidates as per its requirement. It is settled principle of law that employer cannot travel beyond the prescribed/ advertised qualification to accept any qualification other than prescribed qualification and, in this case, admittedly, the appellant has not been able to show that he is possessing the proficiency certificate with 65% marks which is condition even for the prescribed qualification. Here, in this case, the qualification for the post of Sub Station Attendant – II was prescribed by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and in accordance with that advertisement was issued. Admittedly, the appellant possessed certificate of proficiency at the Apprenticeship training but it is not stated that the appellant acquired the said training certificate with 65% marks. In this view of the matter, the certificate of proficiency acquired by the appellant cannot be termed to be equivalent to the prescribed qualification for the post of Sub Station Attendant – II. The appellant has no case for interference. Accordingly, the questions formulated by this Court in this second appeal are answered in negative. Hence, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.