ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), whereby show cause has been issued to the petitioner no. 1 calling upon as to why its application for renewal of competency certificate issued to the petitioner no. 2 under Rule 2-A of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1950”) should not be rejected since the competency certificate of the petitioner no. 2-Brij Bihari Tiwari was earlier revoked by the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to issue competency certificate to the petitioner no. 2. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship firm which engages competent persons for the purpose of carrying out tests, examination, inspection and certification under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder. Earlier, the petitioner no. 1 was issued certificate of competency with respect to one Surendra Kumar Singh being a civil engineer employed by it. After expiry of the said competency certificate on 18.01.2018, the petitioner no. 1 being an institution applied before the respondent no. 3-the Chief Inspector of Factories, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for renewal of certificate of competency issued in the name of Surendra Kumar Singh as well as for grant of fresh competency certificate to the petitioner no. 2 (a mechanical engineer employed by petitioner no. 1) whereupon a show cause notice was issued by the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 10.05.2018 to the petitioner no. 1 stating that competency certificate of petitioner no. 2 was once cancelled by the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand and, therefore, it would not be proper to reconsider his name as a competent person. The respondent no. 3 also stated in the said letter that as per the records maintained in the office of the said respondent, the petitioner no. 1 had failed to comply condition nos. V, VI, IX, X, XI and XII of the competency certificate, which was considered as violation of the provisions of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 and hence, it was required to file reply to the show cause notice as to why the application for renewal of competency certificate should not be rejected. The petitioner no. V, VI, IX, X, XI and XII of the competency certificate, which was considered as violation of the provisions of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 and hence, it was required to file reply to the show cause notice as to why the application for renewal of competency certificate should not be rejected. The petitioner no. 1 replied the said show cause notice vide its letter dated 25.05.2018 stating that there had been no violation as alleged and there was no impediment in renewing the certificate of competency issued with respect to one Surendra Kumar Singh. It was also stated in the said reply that since the petitioner no. 2 was a qualified and experienced person fulfilling all the eligibility criteria for declaring him as a competent person under rule 2-A of the Rules, 1950, his competency certificate was cancelled with ulterior motive. However, the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 31.05.2018 only recognized Surendra Kumar Singh as competent person and declined to recognize the petitioner no. 2 as competent person. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 2 cannot be deprived of getting competency certificate on mere ground that his certificate was earlier revoked by the then Chief Inspector of Factories and as such the respondents debarred the petitioner no. 2 for an indefinite period which is in the teeth of various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. It is further submitted that under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it has been informed to the proprietor of the petitioner no. 1 that a similarly situated person namely, Sumit Kumar whose certificate was earlier revoked was subsequently given the competency certificate and thus the respondents have discriminated the petitioner no. 2 as against similarly situated persons. It is also submitted that there is no provision in the Factories Act, 1948 as well as in the Rules, 1950 empowering the respondent no. 3 to revoke the certificate of the person/institution for an indefinite period. Even if it is presumed that once the same is revoked and there is no provision for renewal of a competency certificate, the said revocation can only be applicable till the validity of the certificate lasts and not beyond that. 3 to revoke the certificate of the person/institution for an indefinite period. Even if it is presumed that once the same is revoked and there is no provision for renewal of a competency certificate, the said revocation can only be applicable till the validity of the certificate lasts and not beyond that. There is no provision in the statute or the Rules made thereunder prohibiting issuance of fresh certificate of competency to a person whose certificate has been revoked sometime in the past. The impugned action of the concerned respondent in recognizing a person/institution as competent person of few districts of the State will decrease the competition and the same will cause huge loss to the public exchequer. Moreover, the certificate of competency was issued to M/s Yash Enterprises vide letter no. 97/8 dated 24.05.2011 which was revoked vide letter no. 291 dated 24.04.2014 for alleged violation of Clause 4 of the Certificate of Competency mentioning that certificates in respect of calibration of the equipment used for testing purposes were to be submitted to the Chief Inspector of Factories every year. Thus, the competency certificate of the petitioner no. 2 was never cancelled/revoked, rather the competency certificate of M/s Yash Enterprises was revoked vide letter no. 291 dated 24.04.2014. The petitioner no. 2 is a qualified Mechanical Engineer and has no other permanent means of livelihood. Almost seven years have passed from the date of its debarment though he holds all the requisite qualification and experience for declaring him a competent person. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after expiry of the competency certificate of one Surendra Kumar Singh, the petitioner no. 1 applied for renewal of the same on 02.05.2018 with a request to grant fresh competency certificate to the petitioner no. 2. The competency certificate of Surendra Kumar Singh was issued, however, the competency certificate of the petitioner no. 2 was refused since the same issued to him earlier was revoked. There is no provision for reconsideration of competency certificates which were revoked and as such the request of the petitioner no. 1 to issue fresh competency certificate to the petitioner no. 2 has been rejected. It is further submitted that Mr. 2 was refused since the same issued to him earlier was revoked. There is no provision for reconsideration of competency certificates which were revoked and as such the request of the petitioner no. 1 to issue fresh competency certificate to the petitioner no. 2 has been rejected. It is further submitted that Mr. Sumit Kumar (a mechanical engineer) had obtained competency certificate under the banner of M/s Indian Industrial Consultants, Hinoo, Ranchi while concealing the fact that his competency certificate was revoked by the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand in the year 2014, which was issued to him as an employee of M/s Subhas Kumar and Co. Deepanjali Enclave, Hinoo, Ranchi. As soon as this fact came to the notice of the respondents, a show cause notice was issued to Mr. Sumit Kumar and ultimately his competency certificate was revoked vide letter dated 31.10.2018. It is also submitted that such instances of issuance of competency certificate cannot be cited as an example by the petitioners so as to claim negative equality. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners has sought direction upon the respondents to issue competency certificate to the petitioner no. 2, whereas the respondents have contended that the competency certificate of the petitioner no. 2 was earlier revoked and there is no provision for reconsideration of competency certificate. 6. To appreciate the contention of the parties, it would be relevant to refer Section 2(ca) of the Factories Act, 1948 which defines competent person, which reads as under: (ca) “competent person” in relation to any provision of this Act, means a person or an institution recognised as such by the Chief Inspector for the purposes of carrying out tests, examinations and inspections required to be done in a factory under the provisions of this Act having regard to: (i) the qualifications and experience of the person and facilities available at his disposal. (ii) the qualifications and experience of the persons employed in such institution and facilities available therein, with regard to the conduct of such tests, examinations and inspections, and more than one person or institution can be recognised as a competent person in relation to a factory. 7. Further rule 2-A of the Rules, 1950 provides the procedure for grant of certificate of competency which reads as under: 2A. 7. Further rule 2-A of the Rules, 1950 provides the procedure for grant of certificate of competency which reads as under: 2A. Procedure of grant of Certificate of Competency: (1) The Chief Inspector may recognise any person as “competent person” within such area and for such period as may be specified for the purposes of carrying out tests, examinations, inspections and certification for such buildings, dangerous machinery, hoists and lifts, lifting machines and lifting tackles, pressure plant, confined space, ventilation system and such other process or plant and equipment as stipulated in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, located in a factory, if such person possess the qualifications, experiences and other requirements as set out in the schedule annexed to this Rule: Provided that the Chief Inspector may relax the requirements of qualifications in respect of a competent person, if such a person is exceptionally experienced and knowledgeable, but not the requirements in respect of the facilities at his command: Provided further that the competent person recognised under this provision shall not be above the age of 62 and shall be physically fit for the purpose of carrying out the tests, examination and inspection. (2) The Chief Inspector may recognise an institution of repute, having person possessing qualifications and experience as set out in the schedule annexed to sub-rule (1) for the purposes of carrying out tests, examinations inspections and certifications for buildings, dangerous machinery, hoists and lifts, lifting machine, and lifting tackles, pressure plant, confined space ventilation system and such other process or plant and equipment as stipulated in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, as a competent person within such area and for such period as may be specified. (3) The Chief Inspector on receipt of an application in the prescribed form from a person or an institution intending to be recognised as a ‘competent person’ for the purposes of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, shall register such application and after satisfying himself as regards competence and facilities available at the disposal of the applicant may recognise the applicant as a competent person. Such application shall be disposed of either by issuing a certificate of competency in the prescribed form or by rejecting the same specifying reasons therefor within a period of 60 days. Such application shall be disposed of either by issuing a certificate of competency in the prescribed form or by rejecting the same specifying reasons therefor within a period of 60 days. (4) The Chief Inspector, if he has reason to believe that competent person: (a) has violated any condition stipulated in the certificate of competency. (b) has carried out a test, examination and inspection or has acted in manner inconsistent with the intent or the purpose of this Act or the Rules made thereunder, or has omitted to act as required under the Act or Rules made thereunder. (c) for any other reason to be recorded in writing; may revoke the certificate of competency after giving an opportunity to the ‘competent person’ for being heard. Explanation - For the purpose of this Rule, an institution includes an organisation. (5) The Chief Inspector may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, require re-certification of lifting machines, lifting tackles, pressure plant or ventilation system, as the case may be, which has been certified by a competent person outside the State. 8. Thus, under Rule 2-A of the Rules, 1950, the Chief Inspector may recognise any person or establishment as ‘competent person’ within such area and for such period as may be specified for the purposes of carrying out tests, examinations, inspections and certification for such buildings, dangerous machinery, hoists and lifts, lifting machines and lifting tackles, pressure plant, confined space, ventilation system and such other process or plant and equipment as stipulated in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, located in a factory, if such person possess the qualifications, experiences and other requirements as set out in the schedule to the rule as also the Chief Inspector of Factories may revoke such certificate of competency after giving an opportunity of hearing to such competent person. 9. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner no. 2 was issued show cause notice vide letter no. 261 dated 03.04.2014 and after considering his reply, the order as contained in letter no. 291 dated 24.04.2014 revoking his competency certificate was passed by the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand. 10. I have gone through memo no. 63 dated 30.09.2014 which is a report of Committee comprising of Inspectors of Factories of different circles such as Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Giridih, Chaibasa and Bokaro and Dy. 291 dated 24.04.2014 revoking his competency certificate was passed by the then Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand. 10. I have gone through memo no. 63 dated 30.09.2014 which is a report of Committee comprising of Inspectors of Factories of different circles such as Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Giridih, Chaibasa and Bokaro and Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories, Bokaro, wherein under Clause (C), the terms and conditions for review and extension of competency certificate has been provided which speaks that before granting extension/renewal of the competency certificate, the record of the performance of the competent person as well as the adherence to the terms and conditions of the certificate should be put under assessment by the authority and having found satisfactory, the competency certificate may be renewed/extended for a period upto two years. It thus appears that the past record of competent person is a relevant consideration for renewal of competency certificate and hence, the claim of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 2 is fully competent to be granted competency certificate has no leg to stand more so when the order of revocation passed vide letter no. 291 dated 24.04.2014 still stands. Though in the said report, it has been stated that the same is advisory in nature and will be applied in the spirit of the relevant section and rule, the petitioners have failed to show any provision which is contrary to the said report and thus the respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be in error in applying the precedence and guidelines as advised in the said report to the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kulja Industries Limited vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 731 , wherein it has been held that the order of debarment cannot be for an indefinite period. Their Lordships laid down the said proposition while dealing with a matter related to order of blacklisting of a contractor participating in government contract whereas in the case in hand, the issue is of grant of competency certificate under rule 2A of the Rules, 1950 which itself provides for revocation of the competency certificate subject to giving opportunity of hearing to the competent person. As observed earlier, the petitioner no. As observed earlier, the petitioner no. 2 was given ample opportunity of hearing before passing the order of revocation against him. 12. One of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a differential treatment has been given to the petitioner no. 2 as against a similarly situated person who has been granted competency certificate even when his previous competency certificate was revoked. The said aspect has duly been replied by the respondents in the counter affidavit stating that competency certificate was obtained by one Sumit Kumar by concealing the fact of revocation of his competency certificate earlier and as soon as the said fact came to the notice of the respondent no. 3, a show-cause was issued to him and finally an order of revocation of his competency certificate was passed. Thus, I also do not find any substance in the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no ground to entertain the present writ petition. 14. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner no. 1 is, however, at liberty to apply for renewal of issuance of competency certificate by giving name of an eligible person other than the petitioner no. 2. If such an application is filed by the petitioner no. 1, the same shall be processed by the respondent no. 3 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.