Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 549 (GUJ)

KRUNAL VRAJLAL PILOJPARA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-07-07

NIRZAR S.DESAI, R.M.CHHAYA

body2021
ORDER : R.M.CHHAYA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.2.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mr. A.G. Uraizee, J.), the appellants–original petitioners have preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Heard Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents on advance copy. 3. Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan, learned advocate for the appellants has contended as under:- 3.1 It was contended that even though the appellants – original petitioners possess requisite qualifications, the respondent authorities have not considered them for being eligible for selection for the post of Plastic Processing Operator. 3.2 It was contended by Mr. Chan that in the earlier application, requisite qualifications were different and in the instant selection process, even the terminology has been changed. 3.3 It was also contended that one candidate named Jatin Govindbhai Padhiyar who was also having a similar qualification was selected and appointed as Supervisor Instructor, Class-III (Engineering). 3.4 It was also contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error apparent in coming to the conclusion that the terms “technology” and “engineering” are not similar. 3.5 It was contended by Mr. Chan, learned advocate for the appellants that the learned Single Judge has wrongly come to the conclusion that the posts of Supervisor Instructor (Plastic Group) and Plastic Processing Operator are not equivalent posts. On the aforesaid grounds, it was contended that the appeal requires consideration and the same may be admitted and allowed and the prayers prayed for in the petition may be granted. 4. Per contra, Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 4.1 It was contended by Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP that the appellants do not fulfill the requirement of the advertisement for the post of Supervisor Instructor (Plastic Group). 4.2 It was contended that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the educational qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Supervisor Instructor (Plastic Group). 4.3 It was also contended by Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP that both the posts are distinct and separate and that they are not equivalent, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. 4.3 It was also contended by Mr. Dhawan Jayswal, learned AGP that both the posts are distinct and separate and that they are not equivalent, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. 4.4 It was further submitted that the appellants do not qualify for the said post and they do not possess requisite qualifications and are not entitled for the prayers prayed for in the petition. 4.5 It was contended that the respondent authorities have correctly applied criteria of required qualifications and as the appellants are found not having passed the requisite qualifications, they have been rightly disqualified. On the aforesaid ground, it was therefore contended that the appeal, being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed. 5. No other or further submissions, averments, grounds and/or contentions are made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. Before reverting to the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the factual matrix arising in this appeal. 7. c; whereas, the appellant no.2 possesses Diploma in Plastic Engineering from Government Polytechnic, Valsad affiliated to Technology Examination Boards (TEB) obtained in the year 2011. The respondents issued an advertisement being advertisement no.176/18-19 for different posts and the post in question is the post of Supervisor Instructor (Plastic Group). The respondents applied for the said post and appeared in written examination which was scheduled on 31.7.2019 and thereafter, the appellants appeared in the Computer Proficiency Test conducted on 23.11.2019. When the stage of document verification was adopted by the respondent recruitment authorities, it was found that the qualifications possessed by both the appellants i.e. Diploma in Plastic Engineering was not a requisite educational qualification as per the requirement of the advertisement and hence, their candidature was not considered and the appellants were declared as disqualified as not possessing required educational qualifications. The same was challenged by the appellants in the Writ Petition and hence, this appeal. 8. The same was challenged by the appellants in the Writ Petition and hence, this appeal. 8. The required qualifications for the post of Supervisor Instructor (Plastic Group) provides as under:- “(2) The candidate must possess the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering or Plastic Engineering in Technology or Bachelor of Plastic Technology from the University established under Central or State Act or from any of the Universities founded thereunder or any of the educational institution approved as such or from the University declared as deemed University under Section 3 of University Grant Commission Act, 1956. And he must have one year experience after obtaining the bachelor degree. OR The candidate must possess the three years Diploma of Plastic Mould Technology or Plastic Technology from Technical Examination Board of the State or from the University established under Central or State Act or from any of the Universities founded thereunder or any of the educational institution approved as such or from the University declared as deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956 or from the institution authorized by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). And the candidate must possess two years experience after obtaining Diploma certificate. OR The candidate must have passed National Apprenticeship Certificate (NAC) in Plastic Processing Operator Trade or National Trade Certificate (NTC) and National Craft Instructor Certificate (in the trade where Craft Instructor Course is available) from the Government approved institution, and must possess three years experience of the concerned trade after passing such certificate course.“ 9. As far as the required qualifications for the post of Supervisor Instructor (Plastic Group) are concerned, it clearly prescribe that a person who holds a Diploma should have Diploma in Plastic Mould Technology or Plastic Technology of 3 years and in addition thereto, experience of 2 years after obtaining such degree. The qualifications possessed by the appellants, which are forming part of the record of the petition at Annexures-E and F, clearly show that the appellant no.1 possesses Diploma in Engineering (Plastics Engineering) and the appellant no.2 also possesses Diploma in Plastic Engineering. As correctly held by the learned Single Judge, it is not in dispute that the appellants do not possess the required educational qualifications, but they possess Diploma in Plastic Engineering. The advertisement clearly prescribe that such Diploma should be in Plastic Mould Technology or Plastic Technology. As correctly held by the learned Single Judge, it is not in dispute that the appellants do not possess the required educational qualifications, but they possess Diploma in Plastic Engineering. The advertisement clearly prescribe that such Diploma should be in Plastic Mould Technology or Plastic Technology. Plastic Mould Technology and/or Plastic Technology cannot be equated with Plastic Engineering. We are in total agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the terms “technology” and “engineering” are not synonyms and it is a matter of fact that the appellants do not possess the required educational qualifications as per the recruitment rules. 10. The contention raised by Mr. Jucky Lucky Chan, learned advocate for the appellants that in the year 2015 in the earlier advertisement for the post of Plastic Processing Operator, the qualifications were different and that it included Diploma in Plastic Engineering does not take the case of the appellants any further. In the case on hand, the post concerned was Supervisor Instructor (Plastic Group). The recruitment agency has right to prescribe educational qualifications as per its requirement and each post can have different requisite educational qualifications and the same cannot be substituted by this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, this Court cannot bend the requirements and hold that Diploma possessed by the appellants is in any manner the requisite qualifications as per the advertisement. Diploma in Plastic Mould Technology and/or Diploma in Plastic Technology cannot be equated with Diploma in Plastic Engineering. The respondent authorities have also not prescribed in the advertisement that it is equivalent. There is no material on record or even averred in the petition that the qualification of Diploma in Plastic Engineering is equivalent to Diploma in Plastic Mould Technology and/or Plastic Technology. The learned Single Judge has correctly come to the conclusion that when the recruitment rules require particular educational qualifications, it is sine qua non for the candidate to fulfill and possess such educational qualifications and the same cannot be substituted by this Court in its limited jurisdiction. Even the contention that earlier advertisement did not prescribe for such required educational qualification and that one Mr. Jatin Govindbhai Padhiyar has been appointed to the post of Supervisor Instructor, Class-III (Engineering) is of no avail to the appellants. Even the contention that earlier advertisement did not prescribe for such required educational qualification and that one Mr. Jatin Govindbhai Padhiyar has been appointed to the post of Supervisor Instructor, Class-III (Engineering) is of no avail to the appellants. The post of Supervisor Instructor, Class-III (Engineering) in Plastic is altogether a different post than the post advertised i.e. Supervisor Instructor (Plastic Group) and the appellants cannot take benefit of any negative inequality, if any. 11. In totality of facts, we are in total agreement with the observations and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. All the contentions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellants fail and the appeal, being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 12. As the appeal is dismissed, connected Civil Application also stands dismissed.