JUDGMENT : Pursuant to Advertisement No.2/2015 dated 28.07.2015 published by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (for short ‘ONGC’), Tripura Asset, respondent No.1 herein, the petitioner found himself eligible for the post of “Junior Assistant Technician (Electrical)” as contained in Sl. No.8 of the name of posts detailed in the advertisement (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition) and accordingly, he made online application on 16.08.2015 furnishing all the information as required and a copy of that application annexed as Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition. Pursuant to his application he was issued admit card for the written test held on 20.09.2015 and a copy of the admit card annexed as Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition. He accordingly appeared in the written test. Thereafter the respondents by issuing a call letter dated 19.01.2016(Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition) informed the petitioner that based on his performance in the written test conducted on 20.09.2015, he has been short listed for further selection process and he was asked to appear before the Interview Board for personal interview on 28.01.2016 at 0800 am and accordingly, he appeared before the Interview Board on the date, time and place. At that time he was informed by the Interview Board that he is not eligible for the post on the ground that he was not having with the trade certificate of “electrical trade” and his certificate of “wireman trade” cannot be considered to be the legitimate qualification for the post. Therefore, he was discarded from the selection process despite his protest that there is no trade by name electrical trade and that the “wireman trade” and “electrician trade” are both considered as the “electrical trade”. He thereafter made representation citing the judgment dated 01.09.2010 of the then Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No.255 of 2010, wherein the identical issue was decided by the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the Court and also affirmed by dismissing the SLP filed by the ONGC before the Supreme Court. It was clearly held in the said judgment dated 01.09.2010 that the “wireman trade” comes within the purview of “electrical trade”. It was clearly held in the said judgment dated 01.09.2010 that the “wireman trade” comes within the purview of “electrical trade”. It is, therefore, contended by the petitioner that he has been illegally and wrongly discarded from the selection process though he was eligible and, therefore, he prayed for directing the respondents to consider his candidature for the post of Junior Assistant Technician (Electrical) pursuant to advertisement dated 28.07.2015. 2. Respondents by filing counter affidavit contended that the Director General of Employment and Training (for short ‘DGE&T’), Ministry of Labour, Government of India is the nodal Ministry of Craftsman Training Scheme including the trade of electrician and the trade of wireman etc. and under the DGE&T the vocational training scheme arranged by the National Council of Vocational Training (for short ‘NCVT’). There are definite courses designed by the Ministry of Labour and the Industrial Training Institutes throughout the country are bound to follow the schemes of training and other guidelines issued time to time under the Labour Department of the Government of India. It is contended by the respondents that the syllabus and semester system for the trade of electrician and craftsman training scheme has been designed in 2014 by DGE&T and under the redesigned syllabus entry qualification is prescribed as ClassX pass with Science and Mathematics or its equivalent. As per the information available from the official website of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, the entry level essential qualification, competency skill of scheme for the electrician and wireman are not similar. It is the stand of the respondents that the trade of wireman is not equivalent to that of the electrical trade. The petitioner is having a certificate of wireman issued by the Industrial Training Institute, Tripura and that certificate cannot be made equivalent to the required qualification of electrical trade and hence, the petitioner’s candidature could not be considered for further process. It is further contended by the respondents that the case of Sri Rajesh Banik was different than that of the case of the petitioner and citing the case of Sri Rajesh Banik the petitioner cannot get any advantage. It has also been contended by the respondents that the syllabus for the trade of electrician and wireman has been changed in the year 2014 and the copies of those syllabus are enclosed as Annexure-R/1 and R/2. It has also been contended by the respondents that the syllabus for the trade of electrician and wireman has been changed in the year 2014 and the copies of those syllabus are enclosed as Annexure-R/1 and R/2. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel, Mr. S. Lodh for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. A. Saha for the respondents. 4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has applied for the post of Junior Assistant Technician (Electrical) as stipulated in Sl. No.8 of the advertisement and the essential qualification for the post as mentioned in the advertisement is – “High School or Class X equivalent Board Examinations with science, & Trade Certificate in Electrical Trade. Should have certificate of Competency as Electrical Supervisor.” 5. The petitioner submitted his Madhyamik pass certificate issued by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education along with a copy of mark sheet, which shows that the petitioner passed Madhyamik, i.e., High School Board Examination with Science subjects and he secured 118 marks out of 300. He passed in 3rd division. He has also submitted a copy of his provisional national trade certificate issued by the Industrial Training Institute in the wireman trade and that has reference that the course was affiliated to NCVT vide Order No.DGT 6/23/3/2005TC(Govt.) dated 12.01.2006 and out of 700 marks he secured 521 marks. He has also annexed a national trade certificate issued by the NCVT, wherein it is mentioned that he has passed the prescribed trade test in the trade of wireman. He has further submitted a certificate issued by the Government of Tripura as a supervising electrical workman. Copies of all these certificates are annexed as Annexure-P/1 colly. According to the respondents, the trade of “wireman” cannot be termed as “electrical trade” and so the petitioner’s candidature was not considered. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that Industrial Training Institute conforms two trades, namely, electrician trade and wireman trade and both the trades are known as “electrical trade”. 6. As per the advertisement the petitioner submitted online application and the copy of the application (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition) clearly shows that the petitioner while detailing his qualification clearly mentioned that he had done wireman trade/course by NCVT in 2012 and he secured 72.43% marks. 6. As per the advertisement the petitioner submitted online application and the copy of the application (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition) clearly shows that the petitioner while detailing his qualification clearly mentioned that he had done wireman trade/course by NCVT in 2012 and he secured 72.43% marks. So, it appears that the petitioner clearly mentioned his trade and considering the application the petitioner was issued call letter for the written test and he succeeded in the written test and thereafter call letter was issued for personal interview and the same documents the petitioner produced before the Interview Board when he was informed, admittedly, that he was not having with a certificate of electrical trade. 7. So, the only issue which fell for consideration is whether the wireman trade in which the petitioner obtained certificate from NCVT after having two years training course conforms to electrical trade or not? 8. It is submitted by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 01.09.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.255 of 2010, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.35 of 2010 and a special leave petition filed against the said judgment before the Supreme Court was also dismissed vide Order dated 08.04.2011 in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No.8543/2011 (Annexure-P/8, P/9 and P/10 to the writ petition). 9. Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the case of Sri Rajesh Banik the interview process was over and he was already selected and at the time of his training after appointment he was found to be not eligible and so, the case of Sri Rajesh Banik is not similar to that of the case of the present petitioner. 10. I have meticulously gone through the judgment. am of considered opinion that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 01.09.2010 in W.P.(C) No.255 of 2010. 11. I have already reproduced hereinbefore the essential qualification mentioned in the advertisement dated 28.07.2015. In the case of Sri Rajesh Banik the essential qualification has been mentioned in para3 of the judgment, which reflects – “3. By the aforesaid Annexure P/1, among others, the post of Jr. Asstt. Tech(Elect.) was advertised. The Educational/Professional qualification prescribed in the said advertisement was as follows: “Matric with science and valid Electrical Trade Certificate of Competency as Electrical Supervisor.” 12. By the aforesaid Annexure P/1, among others, the post of Jr. Asstt. Tech(Elect.) was advertised. The Educational/Professional qualification prescribed in the said advertisement was as follows: “Matric with science and valid Electrical Trade Certificate of Competency as Electrical Supervisor.” 12. The issue raised in that case and the issue before us in the present writ petition is found to be exactly same. The advertisement was made with essential qualification in electrical trade and the petitioner of that case had the trade certificate of wireman like that of the present petitioner. Paragraph6 of the judgment shows that the petitioner of that case submitted certain certificates and for ready reference we may quote here para6 of that judgment, which reads as follows : “6. The petitioner had annexed copies of the certificates along with the said letter dated 15.02.2010 which included the (i) Certificate of Matric with Science; (ii) Certificate of competency in supervising electrical installation work and (iii) National Trade Certificate in the trade of wireman. Along with the said certificates, the petitioner also enclosed the certificate dated 11.4.2002 issued by the Deputy Director, Industrial Training Institute, Indranagar, Agartala and another certificate dated 20.2.2010 issued by the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Indranagar. For ready reference the said two certificates are quoted below: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that the ‘WIREMAN’ trade of I.T.I, under DGE&T, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India is an Electrical trade. This is of two years duration. Sd/- 11.4.02 Deputy Director Industrial Training Institute Indranagar, Agartala TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that the ‘Wireman’ Trade of Industrial Training Institute under DGE&T, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India is an Electrical Trade. This is of two years duration. Sd/ 20.2.10 Principal Industrial Training Institute Indranagar,” 13. Learned Single Judge recorded his observation in respect of the trade certificate as to whether the trade certificate of wireman conforms to the electrical trade, the required qualification, in para8, 9 and 10 of the judgment, which read as follows : “8. The small question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the petitioner did conform the requirement of professional qualification so far as it relates to Trade Certificate in electrical trade. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is their stand that the petitioner did not conform to the requirement of having Trade Certificate in electrical trade. 9. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is their stand that the petitioner did not conform to the requirement of having Trade Certificate in electrical trade. In this connection, they have referred to Annexure-R/1 and R/2 letters dated 15.2.2010 and 16/19.2.2010 respectively. By the first letter dated 15.2.2010, the respondent-Corporation requested the Secretary, State Council for Vocational Training, Tripura to furnish information as to whether the particular Trade Certificate submitted by the petitioner could be said to be Trade Certificate in electrical trade. Along with the said letter, the respondent-Corporation had also enclosed the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner clarifying that the “wireman” trade is an electrical trade. 10. In response to the aforesaid letter dated 15.2.2010(Annexure- R/1), the Government of Tripura in the Department of Industries and Commerce under the Signature of Director (I&C) furnished the required information to the Manager (HR), ONGC Ltd. Tripura vide Annexure-R/2 letter dated 16/19.2.2010 by stating that the queries made stood answered by the above quoted certificate dated 11.4.2002 which was followed by another certificate dated 20.2.2010. Thus queries made by the respondent Corporation were met with by the Department of Industries and Commerce confirming the above quoted certificates issued in favour of the petitioner clarifying that the Wireman trade of ITI under DGE&T, Ministry of Labour, Government of India is an Electrical trade.” 14. Pursuant to the above discussion, the Court held – “14. Upon consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that when the petitioner has met the requirement of the trade certificate and the respondents Corporation also verified the certificates through the issuing authority, there remained nothing for any action of the respondents Corporation to issue the impugned Memorandum dated 24.3.2010 can celling the offer of appointment made in favour of the petitioner. 15. There is another aspect of the matter. If the petitioner is authorized to supervise the electrical installation work described in the certificate, which is supervising electrical workman’s certificate of competency, it cannot be said that he is not a certificate holder in electrical trade which has also been certified by the above two quoted certificates. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find force in the submission of Mr. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find force in the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the considered opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed which I accordingly do. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 24.3.2010. The respondents shall now take all consequential follow up action immediately. 17. Writ petition is allowed without, however, no order as to costs.” 15. This judgment dated 01.09.2010 admittedly was challenged by the respondents ONGC before the Division Bench by filing writ appeal and when the writ appeal was dismissed a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court and that was also dismissed. Even after such judicial pronouncement the respondents ONGC made the advertisement inviting applications with the essential qualification electrical trade without further specifying that the electrical trade shall contain some other elements. It has already been decided in the judicial forum that the wireman trade is an electrical trade as already certified by the Deputy Director of Industrial Training Institute and the Principal of Industrial Training Institute, which was considered by the writ Court. 16. It was submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Saha that the Deputy Director of Industrial Training Institute and the Principal of Industrial Training Institute had no authority to issue such certificate and the Ministry of Labour is the only authority to issue such a certificate. I cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Saha. It is an admitted position that Industrial Training Institutes are run at the State level and in accordance with the guidelines of DGE&T and the certificate of the petitioner was issued by the NCVT. It does not fit nice in the mouth of the respondents that the certificate issued by the competent authority of Industrial Training Institute cannot be considered. In the absence of any contrary document produced by the respondents, I find nothing to consider the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Saha. 17. By filing Annexure-R/1 and R/2 the respondents tried to distinguish the courses of wireman and electrician. Having gone through the same I find that it is a new course introduced in the year 2014, whereas the petitioner completed his course in the year 2012. So, the course introduces now has nothing to do with the certificate obtained by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier course. 18. Having gone through the same I find that it is a new course introduced in the year 2014, whereas the petitioner completed his course in the year 2012. So, the course introduces now has nothing to do with the certificate obtained by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier course. 18. It was within the hand of the respondents to clearly specify as to what qualification or trade they want in the advertisement for the post. Since there was already a judicial pronouncement that the trade of wireman is equivalent to the electrical trade, the respondents while making the advertisement would make their requirement clear by specific mention. While they have not made it, though there was a judicial pronouncement, the respondents cannot put out the petitioner from the selection process on the ground that he was not having with a trade certificate of electrical trade. 19. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed. The trade certificate submitted by the petitioner should be considered as a trade certificate of “electrical trade” and he should be allowed to participate in the selection process for the post of Junior Assistant Technician (Electrical) in terms of Advertisement No.2/2015 dated 28.07.2015. 20. I consider it a fit case to impose a cost of Rs.3,000/(Rupees three thousand) on the respondents ONGC to be paid to the petitioner since the respondents ONGC pushed the petitioner to approach the Court though there was a judicial pronouncement on the issue which fell for consideration in this writ petition. 21. The writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.3,000/to be paid to the petitioner.