Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2096 (HP)

Bharat Bhushan v. Himachal Pradesh University

2011-04-20

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner has challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Data Entry Operator. Respondent-University issued advertisement No. 1/2000 whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Data Entry Operator. Minimum qualification prescribed for the post in question was graduate with knowledge of Data Entry and word processing from a recognized Institute/Board/University with vocational trade at the +2 level. Petitioner submitted application for considering his candidature for the post of Data Entry Operator. He appeared in interview alongwith other candidates on 21.6.2001. He was in possession of degree of B. Com. and diploma in Computer. The Selection Committee, however, selected Respondent No. 3 and she joined her duties on 9.7.2001. 2. Ms. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that the diploma obtained by Respondent No. 3 from Indian Institute of Computer Education was not duly recognized. She has heavily relied upon Annexures A-7, A-9, A-11 and PR-2 dated 26.12.2001. 3. Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. R.P. Singh have supported the selection of Respondent No. 3 to the post in question. According to them, Respondent No. 3 was duly qualified and has also improved her qualification by obtaining post-graduate diploma in computer application. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The minimum qualification, as noticed above, for the post of Data Entry Operator, was graduate with knowledge of Data Entry and word processing from a recognized Institute/Board/University with vocational trade at the +2 level. Respondent No. 3 has obtained diploma from Indian Institute of Computer Education. The core issue which is required to be considered in this petition is: whether diploma obtained by Respondent No. 3 from the Indian Institute of Computer Education is recognized or not. 6. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-7. Petitioner has been informed by the Deputy Director (TE), Government of Delhi, Department of Training and Technical Education on 18.9.2001 that the Institute named I.I.C.E. Institute is not included in the list of Diploma Institutes approved by the A.I.C.T.E. or affiliated to the Board of Technical Education, Delhi. Similarly, Petitioner has been informed by the Director, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training on 19.9.2001 (Annexure A-9) that as per records there was no Institute by the name of IICE affiliated with N.C.V.T., Government of India Ministry of Labour (DGE&T) in Himachal Pradesh. Similarly, Petitioner has been informed by the Director, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training on 19.9.2001 (Annexure A-9) that as per records there was no Institute by the name of IICE affiliated with N.C.V.T., Government of India Ministry of Labour (DGE&T) in Himachal Pradesh. Joint Director of Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Directorate General of Employment and Training informed the Petitioner on 8.10.2001 (Annexure A-11) that the Indian Institute of Computer Education was not affiliated to N.C.V.T. It was also made clear in the communication dated 8.10.2001 addressed to the Petitioner that the Institute could not run at another place with a headquarter at some other place. The Institute had to get affiliation at the place where it was actually located. Petitioner has also been informed by the Deputy Director (Training), Government of Delhi vide Annexure PR-2 that only the trade of Computer Operator and Programming Assistant a Certificate Level Course having two units (with intake of 40 trainees) was affiliated on the address of I.I.C.E. and except the above centre and trade with the above intake, the Institute was not affiliated at any other place in Delhi. It was specifically stated in this communication dated 26.2.2001 that the Government of Delhi did not allow the branches of the affiliated course/institution anywhere except at the address on which the Institution was affiliated. 7. What emerges from the combined reading of Annexures A-7, A-9, A-11 and PR-2 is that the Indian Institute of Computer Education has no branch anywhere except in Delhi. Respondent No. 3 has admittedly obtained diploma by pursuing her course from Indian Institute of Computer Education, 18-19, P.D. Complex, The Ridge, Shimla. It is also evident from Annexure R-3/D dated 15.5.1997 that the Indian Institute of Computer Education, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi has been permitted to run Data Preparation and Computer Software in two units with effect from August, 1997 (one unit in each shift). There is no mention of any branch beyond the National Capital Territory of Delhi. In these circumstances, the diploma obtained by Respondent No. 3 is not from a recognized Institute. Respondent No. 3 was required to study only at the branch, which was duly approved/affiliated. Moreover, the Indian Institute of Computer Education had intake of only 40 candidates, that too, at Delhi. 8. Mr. In these circumstances, the diploma obtained by Respondent No. 3 is not from a recognized Institute. Respondent No. 3 was required to study only at the branch, which was duly approved/affiliated. Moreover, the Indian Institute of Computer Education had intake of only 40 candidates, that too, at Delhi. 8. Mr. R.P. Singh has vehemently argued that Respondent No. 3 has improved her qualification by obtaining post-graduate diploma in computer application. It is made clear that since the earlier diploma obtained by Respondent No. 3 was not recognized, the acquiring of postgraduate diploma in computer application, will not advance the cause of the Respondent No. 3. 9. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, it is declared that diploma obtained by Respondent No. 3 was not recognized and she could not be offered appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Data Entry Operator is quashed and set aside with immediate effect. It shall be open to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to hold fresh selection process to fill up the post of Data Entry Operator. No costs.