Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1683 (RAJ)

Bhawani Singh v. R. P. S. C. , Ajmer

2015-09-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 10.09.2015 passed by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer ('RPSC'), whereby, the petitioner has been held ineligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector on account of lack of educational qualification. 2. The petitioner served with the Indian Army during the period 26.07.1984 till 31.07.2005 and passed his Secondary Examination from Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal; a Notification dated 08.08.2013 was published by the respondents, inter alia, indicating vacancies for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector; the qualifications prescribed were as under:- ^^;ksX;rk^^ (1) Most have passed secondary examination of a recognised board and (2) Diploma in automobile Engineering (3 year course) diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by State Board of Technical Education. OR Any qualification in either of the above disciplines declared equivalent by the Central Government or State Government & (3) Working experience of not less then one year in a reputed automobile work shop which under takes repair of both light motor vehicles Heavy Goods Vehicles & Heavy Passenger Motor vehicle fitted with Petrol and diesel Engine. (4) Must have a driving licence authorising him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles. 2. Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthan Culture." 3. The petitioner claiming himself to be qualified, applied pursuant to the notification and appeared in the written test, which he qualified; the petitioner was called for interview by letter dated 25.08.2015 by RPSC; when petitioner appeared for interview on 10.09.2015, he was not interviewed and was handed over the order dated 10.09.2015 (Annexure-5), inter alia, indicating that on examination of certificates annexed with the application, as it was found that petitioner was not holding Diploma in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering and the Transport Supervisor Course Ser-N-25 passed by him is not eligible educational qualification. 4. 4. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner by rejecting his educational qualification; it was claimed that once interview call was sent, the petitioner should have been interviewed; the petitioner was trained in repairing motor vehicles; the educational qualification was not indicated as essential qualification in the advertisement and the essential qualification was being fulfilled by the petitioner; the course undertaken by the petitioner was Transport Supervisor Course, which is only having difference in the nomenclature; once the petitioner was allowed to appear in written test, the respondents are estopped from denying him to appear for the interview; the petitioner has waited for three years as the process started in the year 2013 and, therefore, now the respondents are not justified in not permitting the petitioner to appear for interview and, therefore, the action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 6. As noticed hereinbefore, the qualification prescribed for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector is secondary alongwith Diploma in Automobile Engineering (three years course) Diploma in Mechanical Engineering or any qualification in either of the two disciplines declared equivalent by the Central Government or the State Government; alongwith the said educational requirement, it was also indicated that working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture was also essential; the petitioner has filed Annexure-2 issued by Army School of Mechanical Transport, wherein, an individual course report has been given showing that petitioner had attended Transport Supervisor's Course SCR-N-25 during the period 18.03.1999 to 20.05.1999 and was awarded grading B, Y inter alia, indicating that he had cleared the Theory, Application, Practical and Instructional Ability. The petitioner has also filed copy of an office memorandum dated 26.04.2012, inter alia, indicating issuance of a directory providing comparative information about the job information of the service personnel during their engagement in the Army towards the civilian jobs, however, alongwith the memorandum, the petitioner has not produced any document indicating the equivalence qua the certificate Annexure-2 held by him. 7. 7. A bare look at the requirements of qualification indicates that the same required a Diploma of three years duration in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering or any qualification equivalent to above Diploma; a course of two months duration as reflected from Annexure-2 cannot by any stretch of imagination be claimed to be equivalent to a diploma of a three years duration and petitioner has also failed to produce any equivalence assigned by the Central Government or State Government to claim such a benefit; the course attended by the petitioner reflected from the document (Annexure-2) cannot be said to be equivalent to the educational qualification required by the advertisement. 8. So far as the plea raised by the petitioner regarding permission to appear in the written examination and calling for the interview and the said act of the respondents leading to estoppel against them from questioning the educational qualification of the petitioner is concerned, a look at the letter calling the petitioner for interview would indicate that the same specifically provides that petitioner's admission to personality and viva voce test is provisional subject to eligibility as per advertisement/rules and, therefore, petitioner cannot claim any estoppel. Even otherwise, there could not be any estoppel qua the educational qualification for holding any post and merely because petitioner was permitted to appear in the written test and was called for interview cannot be a reason enough for ignoring the ineligibility of the petitioner on account of lack of educational qualification as prescribed. 9. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.