Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 769 (JHR)

Dinesh Ram v. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited

2017-04-26

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Chandrashekhar, J. Rejection of his candidature, for appointment to the post of Jr. Electrical Engineer (GTO) for not submitting NOC in time, has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) is not a prescribed qualification for appointment under the Employment Notification and if a candidate satisfies the mandatory qualifications for appointment, delayed submission of NOC cannot be a ground for rejecting claim for appointment. 4. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit, Mr. O.P. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondent Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, submits that if the stipulations under the advertisement are not adhered to by the employer it would lead to arbitrary relaxation of conditions under the advertisement, which must be avoided. It is contended that if the employer insists on compliance of conditions under the advertisement, a candidate aspiring appointment cannot insist that some of the conditions may be waived off. 5. Vide Employment Notification No. 02/2015, online applications were invited from the candidates possessing 3 years'' continuous post attainment qualification in the field of Power Generation/Transmission/Distribution in any PSU/Central Government/State Government/State Govt. utilities. The posts advertised were temporary, for appointment in the subsidiary companies of JUVNL. The petitioner is an aspirant for appointment to the post of Jr. Electrical Engineer (GTO) for which prescribed educational qualification is three years'' full time Electrical/Electronic/Mechanical Engineering Diploma from any AICTE/Government recognized institution or its equivalent. The petitioner possesses the prescribed educational qualification and he has attained requisite minimum experience. These facts are not denied by the respondents. The online application submitted by the petitioner would disclose that he has submitted all requisite documents except, NOC, which can be submitted at the time of interview, as prescribed under the Employment Notification. For appointment to the post of Jr. Electrical Engineer (GTO), it is apparent that, educational and the experience qualification are essential qualifications, however, NOC from the previous employer has not been shown as a qualification. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that NOC would be an essential qualification, may be essential requirement, for appointment to the post of Jr. Electrical Engineer (GTO). The petitioner is working as JE Engineering Cell under Border Security Force and at the time of submission of application, he had rendered about 5 years, 3 months service under BSF. Electrical Engineer (GTO). The petitioner is working as JE Engineering Cell under Border Security Force and at the time of submission of application, he had rendered about 5 years, 3 months service under BSF. As the nature of appointment under JUVNL would reveal, NOC is required primarily for the purpose of taking consent of the previous employer, which an employer may refuse for variety of reasons. 6. The respondents, labelling the petitioner as reluctant and negligent, have pleaded that an applicant who did not care to apply for NOC, in time, does not deserve appointment. It is not in dispute that a written test was conducted on 08.11.2015 and interview was to be held on 24.12.2015. The respondents admit that the petitioner made an application for NOC, which was forwarded by the competent authority on 16.12.2015. The respondent JUVNL, a prospective employer, however, expects an aspirant for appointment to make an application immediately upon writing the examination. Such expectation of an employer, in normal course, is without any foundation. The advertisement itself provided an opportunity to the candidates to produce NOC at the time of interview. The respondents themselves extended the time for producing NOC by granting 12 days'' time to the petitioner. No objection to NOC dated 17.02.2016 has been registered by the respondents. Now, the employer is reluctant to extend time any further. Admittedly, there is one post under SC category and it has remained unfilled. No doubt, an employer cannot wait for a candidate to produce NOC, for an indefinite period, but the petitioner who fulfills all mandatory qualifications and was called for interview when the employer itself extended the time for producing NOC, and has produced NOC dated 17.02.2016, in the background of the peculiar facts of the case, deserves a direction for consideration of his claim for appointment. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered that if the petitioner fulfills all other qualifications, if any, and he is found suitable for appointment, NOC produced by him, subject to verification, shall be accepted and he shall be offered appointment by the respondent Director. 8. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.