Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 412 (HP)

Ravi Singh Rajouria v. State of H. P.

2011-02-21

KULDIP SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J. The petitioner has prayed for mainly the following reliefs:- (i) That the respondents be directed to appoint the applicant forthwith as Crafts Instructor (Elec. Mech.) as per the recommendations for his selection ( Annexure-1A/10). (ii) That the respondents be directed to pay the applicant wages and all consequential benefits from and on the date from which the other persons were appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 14/10/2000. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes (iii) That the respondents be directed to count the seniority of the applicant from the date when the other persons have been appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 14/10/2000. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner passed his matriculation examination in the year 1983, Plus Two Examination in the year 1988 and thereafter completed his training in the trade of Electronics (Mech.) from Industrial Training Institute (ITI), Solan. The petitioner did Crash Programme in Common Electric Product from ITI, Solan. The petitioner did his advance training from Advance Training Institute for Electronics and Process Instrumentation, Dehradun. The petitioner taught at Durga Institute of Electronics from 7.8.1990 to 18.8.1991. The petitioner had served M/s. Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd. Solan in the year 1992. 3. In the year 1996 some vacancies of Instructors (Elec. Mech.) were available with the respondents on contract basis. The petitioner qualified the written test and also the interview. He was given appointment letter on 17.12.1996. The petitioner was offered consolidated pay of Rs. 3,000/-, therefore, he did not join, though he was selected and appointed purely on contract basis for a period of 89 days. 4. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 14.10.2000 in Punjab Kesri for filling up post of Crafts instructor (Elec. Mech.) The qualifications for the post of Crafts instructor (Elec. Mech.) advertised on 14.10.2000 were the same as laid for the post of instructor ( Elec. Mech.) vide letter dated 19.11.1996. 5. The petitioner qualified the written test and appeared for the personal interview alongwith two others on 4.7.2001 in the office of H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur. The petitioner on the basis of written test and interview was recommended for selection to the post of Crafts instructor (Elec. Mech.) by H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board on 23.7.2001. The petitioner however, was not appointed and therefore, he filed the petition. The petitioner on the basis of written test and interview was recommended for selection to the post of Crafts instructor (Elec. Mech.) by H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board on 23.7.2001. The petitioner however, was not appointed and therefore, he filed the petition. The action of respondents in not appointing the petitioner has been assailed being in violation of Articles 14/16 of the Constitution. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is fully eligible for the post of Crafts instructor (Elec. Mech.) but respondents have not arbitrarily appointed the petitioner to the said post. 6. The respondents No.1 and 2 have filed joint reply. They have admitted that during the year 1996 the petitioner was interviewed for the post of Instructor (Elec. Mech.) and he was selected and an appointment letter dated17.12.1996 was issued but petitioner did not join his duties. In the meantime the clarification of equivalency of courses conducted by ATI/EPI, Hyderabad and Dehradun etc. were called for vide Directorate letter dated 5.6.1998 with a copy to Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Labour (DGE &T), Govt. of India, New Delhi, who vide letter dated 22.9.1998 intimated that their Institutes at Dehradun and Hyderabad are Central Government Organization which are functioning under the aegis of Ministry of Labour, Directorate General of Employment and Training. The certificate awarded by the Institute for 48 weeks course, called long terms course, is called as Higher National Technician Certificate. The courses offered there are different from Crafts instructor Training Programme conducted by Directorate General of Employment and Training. The certificate issued by ATI, Dehradun is not equivalent to National Crafts Instructor Training certificate. The petitioner does not fulfill the qualification and the certificate issued by the ATI, Dehradun is not equivalent to National Crafts Instructor Trade Certificate (CTI). It has been stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and reiterated his stand. Mr. Vijay Chandan, Director Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training , H.P. has filed supplementary affidavit dated 19.9.2010 and has stated that the matter of equivalency was taken up with the Director of Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi. It has been stated that clarification regarding equivalency of course at para-7 of the main reply may be read as unchanged in view of non receipt of any further clarification from Government of India. It has been stated that clarification regarding equivalency of course at para-7 of the main reply may be read as unchanged in view of non receipt of any further clarification from Government of India. It has been stated that respondents are bound by the executive instruction issued by the Director General Employment and Training from time to time. Mr. Vijay Chandan has filed another supplementary affidavit dated 12.12.2010 and has stated that vide letter dated 21.9.2010 competent authority i.e. Director of Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi has clarified/informed that Higher National Technician Certificate of one year duration awarded by ATI, Hyderabad/Dehradun is not equivalent to Craft Instructor Training Certificate awarded under the aegis of NCVT. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to petitioner the following were the essential qualifications for the post of Crafts Instructor (Elec. Mech.):- i) Matric with Math & Science or equivalent recognized by the University/Board. ii) National Trade Certificate in Eltx.Mech.Trade or equivalent recognized by NCVT or National Apprentship Training Certificate issued/recognized by the NCVT ( later to be preferred) iii) ATI/CTI Training at least one year duration in the Eltx. Mech. Trade with at least two years experience in the Trade concerned, or in an Industrial Training Institute or in a Private reputed concern. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of same qualifications the petitioner was selected for the same post in the year 1996 but offer for engagement given to petitioner was on contract basis for 89 days, therefore, the petitioner did not accept the offer and gave his joining. It has been submitted that the petitioner was again recommended for selection but he has not been appointed wrongly and arbitrarily by respondents. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that no doubt the petitioner was earlier selected for the same post, he was given an offer of appointment also but he did not join the duties but in the meantime clarification regarding equivalency of courses conducted by ATI/EPI, Hyderabad and Dehradun were called vide letter dated 5.6.1998 by the Directorate, with a copy to Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Labour (DGE &T), Govt. of India, New Delhi, who vide letter dated 22.9.198 had intimated that their Institutes at Dehradun and Hyderabad are Central Government Organization which are functioning under the aegis of Ministry of Labour, Directorate General of Employment and Training. The certificate awarded by the Institute for 48 weeks courses called long terms course are an advanced level which is called as Higher National Technician Certificate. The courses offered there are different from Crafts instructor Training Programme conducted by Directorate General of Employment and Training. The certificate issued by ATI, Dehradun is not equivalent to National Crafts Instructor Training certificate. The petitioner does not fulfill the qualification and the certificate issued by the ATI, Dehradun is not equivalent to National Crafts Instructor Trade Certificate (CTI). This has been reiterated in the latest supplementary affidavit dated 12.12.2010. 10. The letter dated 22.9.1998 of Joint Director of Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Directorate General of Employment and Training, New Delhi addressed to Director-Directorate of Technical, Education (Vocational and Industrial Training), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar is as follows:- “Subject:-Clarification regarding equivalency of Courses Conducted at ATI(EPI) Dehradun to Craft Instructor Training of one year duration conducted at ATI’s/CTI-regarding. Kindly refer to your letter No.STV(IT))/H2/5/90/ELtx. Dated 27th July, 1998 addressed to Director-ATI(EPI), Dehradun(UP) with a copy endorsed to this office seeking clarification regarding Equivalency of Courses conducted at ATI (EPI) Dehradun(UP) to Craft Instructor Training Courses of one year duration conducted at ATI’s/CTI under DGE&T. 2. In this connection, it is stated that the Higher National Technician Certificate is issued to the Trainees of Long Term Courses of One year duration at ATI(EPI) Dehradun & Hyderabad. The long term Courses Conducted at ATI(EPI) and is different than the Courses run at Advanced Training Institute/Central Training Institute under Craft Instructor Training Programme meant for Instructor of ITI’s/ITCs. Therefore, the Higher National Technician Certificate awarded to the trainee of Long Term Courses is not equivalent to National Craft Instructor Certificate awarded to the Trainees of ATI/CTI under the Instructor Training Scheme.” 11. Similarly, the letter dated 21.9.2010 of Dy. Therefore, the Higher National Technician Certificate awarded to the trainee of Long Term Courses is not equivalent to National Craft Instructor Certificate awarded to the Trainees of ATI/CTI under the Instructor Training Scheme.” 11. Similarly, the letter dated 21.9.2010 of Dy. Director of Training for Director of Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment DGE&T addressed to Director, Technical, Education ( Vocational and Industrial Training), Sunder Nagar ( Mandi), HImachal Pradesh is as follows:- “Subject: -Regarding equivalency of “Higher National Technician Certificate” conducted at ATI (EPI) Hyderabad/Dehradun to Craft Instructor Training of one year duration conducted at ATI’s/CTI. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No.STV(TE)H-F(9)-28/2009-29563 dated 7.09.2010 on the above subject and to inform you that “Higher National Technician Certificate” of one year duration awarded by ATI Hyderabad/Dehradun is not equivalent to Craft Instructor Training Certificate awarded under the aegis of NCVT.” 12. The Annexure-3 Higher National Technician Certificate issued by Director, Advanced Training Institute for Electronics and Process Instrumentation, Dehradun and relied by petitioner as per above extracted letters dated 22.9.1998 and 21.9.2010 is not equivalent to Craft Instructor Training Certificate awarded under the aegis of NCVT which is essential qualifications for the post in question as per advertisement. There is no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since on the basis of same qualifications the petitioner was earlier selected for the same post, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to appointment for the post in question on the basis of same qualifications when the post was advertised on 14.10.2000. 13. The respondents have explained no doubt the petitioner was earlier selected and offer of appointment was given to him but later on clarification was received from the competent authority regarding the certificate in question and it was found that petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications for the post in question, therefore, despite he was recommended for appointment, he was not given offer for appointment for want of essential qualifications. The respondents have every right to rectify their mistake. The petitioner cannot force the respondents to repeat the mistake by offering him appointment letter for the post in question for which he does not possess requisite qualifications. There is no merit in the petition. 14. In view of above discussion, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.