Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 443 (JK)

Gurmeet Singh v. Union of India

2014-10-31

HASNAIN MASSODI

body2014
JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J.:- 1. Petitioner was sometime in 2009, engaged as Casual Labourer in respondent Department. He responded to Advertisement Notice issued by respondents, published in 3rd September 2009 issue of Employment News inviting application from eligible candidates to fill up available vacancies of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). He participated in selection process. Respondents vide Order No. Adm-I/A&E/MTS/12-13/242 dated 20.04.2012, offered him appointment for the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800 in the Office of Accountant General (AE) J&K, Srinagar. Petitioner claims to have accepted appointment and to have been deputed for medical examination vide No. Admn-I/A&E/2011-12/293 dated 20.04.2012. Petitioner complains that though declared medically fit by the Medical Board, he was not appointed against the post offered on the pretext that petitioner did not have matriculation qualification to his credit at the time he applied for the post. Petitioner's case is that as he had applied for the advertised post as Casual Worker, he was not required to have matriculation qualification to his credit and could have very well acquired such qualification within two years after his appointment. It is pleaded that even if, petitioner is required to be matriculate for his appointment as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), he does possess such qualification and that his matriculation diploma cannot be ignored merely on the ground that he is declared "qualified but require to improve". 2. Respondents in their reply state that petitioner was denied appointment as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), because he failed to produce Matriculation Certificate. Respondents clarify that an under Matric (8th pass) Casual Worker after selection is appointed as MTS Trainees in the pay band of Rs. 4440-7440 without any grade pay and as petitioner claimed to have matriculation qualification to his credit on the date he participated in the selection process, he was offered appointment as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20, 200 with grade Pay of Rs. 1800. It is further pleaded that petitioner having failed in Science subject, he was not declared successful by J&K Board of School Education, that because of remark "qualified but to improve" written on his marks sheet he was not to be treated as matriculate and therefore disentitled from his appointment as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). 1800. It is further pleaded that petitioner having failed in Science subject, he was not declared successful by J&K Board of School Education, that because of remark "qualified but to improve" written on his marks sheet he was not to be treated as matriculate and therefore disentitled from his appointment as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). Respondents claim to have referred the matter to Chairman, J&K Board of School Education for his opinion. It is pleaded that in response to the letter dated 5-6-2012, sent in this regard, the Director Academic, J&K Board of School Education vide communication dated 19th June 2012, clarified that only a candidate who qualified all the elective subjects is to be taken to have qualified the Secondary School Examination (Class 10th). Respondents maintain that in terms of response received from the J&K Board of School Education, petitioner was not taken to have passed Matriculation Examination and therefore, not entitled to 27 points awarded to him on account of matriculation Certificate and thus not eligible for the appointment as Multi Tasking Staff. It is pleaded that independent of his ineligibility once 27 marks awarded to the petitioner for Matriculation Certificate were deleted from his overall merit, his merit would come down, disentitling him from appointment as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). 3. I have gone through the pleadings and record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner admittedly after serving in the respondent Department as Casual Labourer for more than 800 days, participated in the selection process initiated by the respondents to fill up vacancies of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). He in his application dated 21st September 2011, claimed to have passed matriculation examination and therefore to be considered for the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800. Merit secured by the petitioner may be tabulated below: S.No.QualificationMarks obtained 1.Matric27 points 2.Work Experience (more than 800 days as Casual Worker)45 points 3.Interview06 points Total78 Points 5. It needs to be pointed out that in terms of criteria fixed an under matric (8th pass) Casual Worker was not eligible to be considered, for the post of Multi Tasking Staff. He instead would be considered for the vacancy of MTS Trainee in the pay band of Rs. 4440-7440 without any grade pay. It needs to be pointed out that in terms of criteria fixed an under matric (8th pass) Casual Worker was not eligible to be considered, for the post of Multi Tasking Staff. He instead would be considered for the vacancy of MTS Trainee in the pay band of Rs. 4440-7440 without any grade pay. The under matric (8th Pass) Worker after his selection and appointment as MTS Trainee was to pass matriculation examination within 2 years failing which his appointment was liable to be cancelled. Such of the Casual Workers appointed as MTS Trainee who qualify matriculation examination within 2 years were to be confirmed as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20,200 with grade pay of Rs. 1800 per month. However, the period spent as Trainee was not to be counted for seniority. 6. An aspirant for MTS Trainees position was to get 20 points for education qualification as against 27 points earmarked for matriculation or equivalent qualification but below 12th class. Petitioner was awarded 27 points though he was to get only 20 points, had he disclosed his qualification correctly and opted for the position of MTS Trainee. His overall merit would come down to 71 marks. As the petitioner did not opt for MTS Trainee, he cannot have any grievance that he was not considered for MTS Trainee position. In the circumstances, petitioner claim that as he worked as Casual Worker for more than 800 days, he was to be exempted from the requirement of matriculation and was to be appointed as Multi Tasking Staff and given an opportunity to acquire requisite qualification within 2 years is bereft of any merit. Petitioner seeks to build up his case on an erroneous assumption. Therefore, the essential qualification for the post for which he applied was matriculation that petitioner did not possess. 7. Petitioner's case is that even if matriculation was taken as an essential qualification for the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), he had such qualification and on the strength of his merit, he was to be appointed against the post, moreso, when his name figured in the select list, and he successfully underwent Medical Test. The foundation of his claim is marks sheet issued by J&K Board of School Education in his favour. The foundation of his claim is marks sheet issued by J&K Board of School Education in his favour. The record available on the file would reveal that petitioner was a Student of Government Boys High School Shogapora Budgam, (Kashmir). His school Registration No. is BG-99-23245-2070. He left the school after he was promoted to 9th class and was granted school leaving Certificate under No. 955 on 21st April 2012. He as evident from Annexure C to the petition appeared in the matriculation examination (Annual Session) under Roll No. 243438 in 2010, as a private candidate. Marks Card issued by the J&K Board of School Education on 2nd May 2011 records that he failed in Science Theory examination. Resultantly, petitioner was shown as "qualified but to improve". Petitioner, therefore did not pass matriculation examination in 2010. This is reinforced by opinion given by the Director Academic, J&K Board of School Education vide his communication dated 19th June 2012, in response to the request made by respondents to favour them with an opinion regarding the marks card in question. 8. The fact that petitioner has not been granted matriculation Certificate by the Board also leads to the conclusion that the petitioner is not to be treated as a matriculate. The opinion of the Board that the petitioner on the strength of his result in matriculation examination would be entitled to sit in Pre-University Examination is of no consequence, as the petitioner still is not to be considered as a matriculate and therefore eligible for the post under Government requiring matriculation as an essential qualification. Even where a candidate fails in one of the subjects in matric examination, but is permitted to appear in Pre-University Examination, he still would not be treated as matriculate even if he passes Pre-university Examination, unless and until he clears the subject, which he was asked to reappear to complete matriculation. 9. Whether, petitioner with his undisputed qualification (8th pass) deserved to be considered for the MTS Trainee position does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioner knowing fully well that he did not have matriculation qualification to his credit, claimed to be a matriculate and restricted his choice to Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) post. 9. Whether, petitioner with his undisputed qualification (8th pass) deserved to be considered for the MTS Trainee position does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. Petitioner knowing fully well that he did not have matriculation qualification to his credit, claimed to be a matriculate and restricted his choice to Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) post. All other Casual Workers like petitioner who were not matriculates and truthfully recorded their qualification in the application were considered for the position of MTS Trainees and selected on the basis of their merit. Their selection as MTS Trainees therefore, cannot be reopened to examine whether petitioner could have been selected against any of such position, moreso, when petitioner has not only made his choice but erroneously claimed to be a matriculate and aspired for a position for which he was not eligible, to his knowledge. 10. In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed, writ petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. Dismissed.