Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2049 (PNJ)

Krishan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-07-16

A.N.JINDAL, M.M.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking declaration that Item No. 6 of Appendix `B appended to Rule of Punjab Industrial Training (Class-III) Service Rules, 2001 (for brevity `the 2001 Rules) is ultra vires of the Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Further direction has been sought to declare the petitioner eligible and for consideration of his candidature for the post of Pump Mechanic Instructor. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has qualified his Matric from the Punjab School Education Board, which he acquired in March 1989 and thereafter, in March 1993 he qualified 10+2 also. He has done training at Industrial Training Institute at Sunam in the trade of Pump Mechanic and was awarded certificate of National Training from the National Council for Vocational Training. In April 2001, he has qualified another training and obtained certificate of National Apprenticeship Training from the National Council for Vocational Training. Apart from the aforesaid former qualification, he has acquired practical experience as Pump Operator/ Mechanic by working for more than 5 yeas in a private enterprises, namely, Saggu Engineering Works. 3. The grievance made by the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid qualification, the advertisement dated 12.11.2006 (Annexure P-6) issued by the respondent No. 2 to fill up the post of various Instructors including the Pump Mechanic Instructor, he has not been considered qualified. The post of Pump Mechanic is admittedly regulated by the 2001 Rules. The advertisement dated 12.11.2006 (Annexure P-6), which is consistent with the 2001 Rules, has published the following qualifications for appointment to the post of Pump Mechanic Instructor, which reads as under : Post Method of appointment Qualification & Experience Pump Mechanic Instructor Hundred per cent (i) should possess diploma in Mechanical/ Automobile Engineering from a recognized University or institution; and (ii) should possess a least two years practical experience in an organization registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or at least two years teaching experience in a Government Institution or an institution recognized by the Government. OR (i) should possess National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in Pump Mechanic Trade from National Council for Vocational Training. OR (i) should possess National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in Pump Mechanic Trade from National Council for Vocational Training. (ii) should have passed Craft Instructor Training Course from Central Training Institute/ Advance Training Institute in Pump Mechanic Trade from National Council for Vocational Training; and (iii) should possess at least least three years practical experience in an organization registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or at least three years teaching experience in the line in a Government Institution or an Institution recognized by the Government. 4. On a comparison of the qualification as prescribed by Rules and the one possessed by the petitioner, it is evident that he does not answer the prescription of Diploma in Mechanical/ Automobile Engineering from a recognized University, which has been prescribed at Item No. i. Likewise, he also failed to answer the qualification listed at Item No. ii. However, in the alternative qualification, he may satisfy the initial qualification required but again failed to answer the additional qualification at Item No. ii or iii because he does not possess Craft Instructor Training Course from Central Training Institute/ Advance Training Institute in Pump Mechanic Trade from National Council for Vocational Training. He also does not possess three years practical experience in an organization registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or at least three years teaching experience in an institution recognized by the Government. The experience possessed by the petitioner by working in Saggu Engineering Works for more than 5 years does not show that the aforesaid organization is registered under the Factories Act, 1948. The Rules failed to prescribe a qualification, which is awarded by the institution in India. It has been argued that the alternative qualification, would be violative of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that there are many hurdles for the petitioner to succeed in his endeavour. The advertisement, which has published the necessary qualifications (Annexure P-6) was issued on 12.11.2006. The writ petition has been filed on 14.07.2010, which is evident from the stamp affixed by the Registry of this Court. It is, thus, evident that cause of action, if any, had arisen to the petitioner on 12.11.2006 . It is obvious that writ petition is highly belated. The writ petition has been filed on 14.07.2010, which is evident from the stamp affixed by the Registry of this Court. It is, thus, evident that cause of action, if any, had arisen to the petitioner on 12.11.2006 . It is obvious that writ petition is highly belated. Even for filing a suit, the period of limitation is three years and the same period has been read into as maximum period for filing of the writ petition. In that regard reliance may be placed on a judgment of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of State of M.P. v. Bhai Lal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the short ground alone. 6. The question regarding Constitution validity can also not be gone into merely because throughout India. There is neither Central nor State training institute which conduct the Craft Instructor Training Course or Advanced Training in Pump Mechanic Trade that itself may not be sufficient reason to strike down the Constitution validity of Item 6 of Appendix `B to fill up the post of Pump Mechanic Instructor, there may be a person available even from outside India. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. 7. Moreover, it is not necessary that for appointment to the post of instructor, only alternative qualifications laid down by the rules are required to be fulfilled. There are two set of qualifications and if the petitioner lacks one set then person with other set of qualification would also be available. In order to succeed in challenging the vires of the Rules, the absence of a particular course of instruction/ certificate in India cannot constitute a basis to declare the Rule ultra vires of the Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. There may not be any dearth of qualified persons even in the alternative set of qualification who might have acquired the qualification studying abroad. Therefore, even on merit, petitioner has no case. As a sequel to the above discussions, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed.