Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 304 (HP)

DAYA NAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-02-22

KULDIP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-The petitioner in the petition has prayed for quashing of Annexure A-5 dated 3.3.2005 issued by respondent No.3, direction to respondents to call petitioner for personal interview for the post of Craft Instructor (Plumber Trade) and give him appointment with all consequential benefits. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, vide advertisement dated 29.11.2003 Annexure A-1, advertised certain posts of ‘Craft Instructor (Plumber Trade)’ which were earlier advertised vide Subordinate Services Selection Board advertisement No. 5/2002 dated 10.10.2002. Four posts were advertised, two for General, one for S.C. and one for OBC categories. The essential qualifications for the said posts as per Annexure A-1 were as follows :- “(i) Matric with Maths & Science from recognized university/board or equivalent, (ii) National Trade Certificate in the trade concerned or equivalent issued recognized by NCVT or National Apprenticeship Training Scheme Certificate or equivalent issued recognized by NCVT (Latter to be preferred) OR (iii) For trades for which Craft Training Institute Training facility is not available. At least 04 years experience in an trade concerned in the trade Industrial Training Institute and or in a reputed Industrial concerned.” 3. The petitioner in pursuance of advertisement Annexure A-1 submitted his application on 26.12.2003, he was called for written examination which was conducted by respondent No.3. The petitioner was declared successful in the written test. The petitioner has passed matriculation examination with Mathematics and Science. He has Diploma in Mechanical Engineering Annexure A-3. The petitioner has the equivalent certificate of his qualifications / trades issued by the Naval authorities Annexure A-4. The petitioner thus fulfilled all requisite qualifications and experience for the post of Craft Instructor (Plumber Trade), rather his qualification is much higher than the required. 4. The petitioner was expecting a call for personal interview after having qualified the written test, but to his surprise, he was informed vide letter dated 3.3.2005 Annexure A-5 that the qualifications possessed by the petitioner are not as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules. This action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal. The respondent No.2 has wrongly advised respondent No.3 regarding the qualifications and eligibility of the petitioner. The petitioner had made a detailed representation dated 23.3.2005 to the Chief Minister but without any result. In these circumstances, the petition was filed. This action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal. The respondent No.2 has wrongly advised respondent No.3 regarding the qualifications and eligibility of the petitioner. The petitioner had made a detailed representation dated 23.3.2005 to the Chief Minister but without any result. In these circumstances, the petition was filed. The respondents No. 4 and 5 were impleaded vide order dated 24.8.2007 of the erstwhile Tribunal where the petition was originally filed and after the abolition of the Tribunal, the case was transferred to this Court. 5. The petition has been contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing reply in which preliminary objections of maintainability and eligibility of the petitioner for the post were taken. On merits, it has been pleaded that petitioner does not fulfill the required qualifications as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the post. The respondent No.3 has filed separate reply and it has been submitted that before conducting the interview the certificates submitted by the candidate in support of his application were sent to Director, Technical Education respondent No.2 for clarification and said office intimated vide letter dated 18.2.2005 Annexure R-II that the petitioner did not fulfill the required professional qualifications under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post. The requisitioning authority had held that the petitioner did not fulfill the essential qualifications for the post, therefore, respondent No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The essential qualifications for the post of Craft Instructor (Plumber Trade) have already been noticed above. The petitioner has not denied the requisite qualifications meant for the post, but his case is that he is having equivalent qualifications, rather his qualifications are higher. Annexure A-2 is the matriculation examination certificate of the petitioner issued by the H.P.Board of School Education indicating subjects English, Social Studies, Math, Hindi, Phy & Ch and Drawing. The petitioner is thus having matriculation qualification with requisite subjects as per advertisement Annexure A-1 for the post of Craft Instructor (Plumber Trade). Annexure A-3 is the diploma in Mechanical Engineering issued by Ship Wright School indicating that Annexure A-3 is recognized by Ministry of Education and Social Welfare Letter No. 18-15/7212 dated 26.5.1976. The petitioner is also relying on Annexure A-4 Indian Navy equivalent of Naval Trade Certificate dated 20.7.2002. 7. Annexure A-3 is the diploma in Mechanical Engineering issued by Ship Wright School indicating that Annexure A-3 is recognized by Ministry of Education and Social Welfare Letter No. 18-15/7212 dated 26.5.1976. The petitioner is also relying on Annexure A-4 Indian Navy equivalent of Naval Trade Certificate dated 20.7.2002. 7. It is not the case of the petitioner in the petition that Annexure A-3 diploma in Mechanical Engineering of Ship Wright School is the National Trade Certificate in the trade concerned or equivalent issued /recognized by N.C.V.T. or National Apprenticeship Training Scheme Certificate or equivalent issued / recognized by NCVT. It is also not the case of the petitioner that for the trade in question, the training facility in Craft Training Institute is not available. 8. It is the stand of the respondents No.1 to 3 that the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite qualifications as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Craft Instructor (Plumber Trade). In these circumstances, heavy burden lies on the petitioner to establish that he is duly qualified as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules of Craft Instructor (Plumber Trade) post. 9. There is nothing on record to show that diploma in Mechanical Engineering of Ship Wright School is equivalent / issued by an authority / institution prescribed in Annexure A-1 under the heading ‘Essential Qualification for item No. (7) sub item (b). Indian Navy equivalent of Naval Trade Certificate Annexure A-4 dated 20.7.2002 is also on the same footing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the qualification of the petitioner is higher than prescribed in Annexure A-1 for the concerned post. This submission has also no force for want of requisite material on record. There is nothing on record to show that requisite qualification prescribed in Annexure A-1 under heading ‘Essential Qualification for item No. (7) sub item (b) and diploma in Mechanical Engineering Annexure A-3 are in the same line. The petitioner has thus failed to prove that he has higher qualification than the requisite qualifications for the post of Craft Instructor (Plumber Trade). There is no merit in the petition which is liable to be dismissed. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order dated 11.4.2005 and extended from time to time, stands vacated.