Allahabad High Court
Sant Ram vs Hindustan Aeronatics Ltd.Throu.Its ... on 2 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 3
Author: Ritu Raj Awasthi
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 328 of 2013 Appellant :- Sant Ram Respondent :- Hindustan Aeronatics Ltd.Throu.Its General Manager Lko.& Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- P.K.Sinha,Akash Sinha,Prakash Kumar Sinha Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant as well as Mr. Aakash Sinha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
The special appeal has been filed with some delay. It is supported with an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit. We are satisfied about the reasons given in filing the appeal with delay, as such, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
Admit.
Now, with the consent of parties' counsel, we proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
This intra Court appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 17.7.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 6763 (SS) of 1999; Sant Ram vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and others.
Learned counsel for appellant-petitioner submits that the appellant-petitioner had applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in respondents-organization under SC Category. In the selection, the appellant-petitioner had qualified the written test, however, he had been declared failed in the interview and on that basis has been found not suitable for the post in question. It is submitted that in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shikauuk Berozgar Sangh; 1995 (1) UPLBEC 320, the appellant-petitioner was entitled to be given preference over other candidates in the matter of appointment.
It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that the appellant-petitioner had successfully completed the apprenticeship course with the respondents-organization and, as such, he was entitled to get the preference in view of the aforesaid judgment, however, the same has been denied by the respondents and, as such, the impugned decision of the respondents not to select the appellant-petitioner on the post in question was wrong and illegal.
It is submitted by learned counsel for appellant-petitioner that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the applicability of the law as propounded by the Apex Court and has wrongly held that the appellant-petitioner was not entitled to get the preference. It is also contended by learned counsel for appellant-petitioner that the respondents had made manipulation in the marks allotted to the appellant-petitioner in the interview.
Submission is that the respondents in supplementary affidavit filed before this Court have annexed the chart showing the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test as well as in the interview. In the said chart, the name of appellant-petitioner finds place at SL. No. 1. The marks given in interview are handwritten and it goes to show that there was manipulation in the marks given to the appellant-petitioner in the interview.
Submission is that the appellant-petitioner has been given only 09 marks in the interview and on that basis has failed in the selection, however, the chart annexed by the respondents with their supplementary affidavit indicates manipulation in the marks as there is some overwriting.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellant-petitioner was not entitled to get any preference on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others (supra) as the Apex Court has categorically held that the said preference to the apprenticeship over others can be given only in the event of other things being equal.
In the present case, the appellant-petitioner had not qualified in the interview as he had not obtained the minimum marks prescribed for the interview. He had obtained only 9 marks in the interview whereas the minimum marks required to be obtained by the SC Category candidates in the interview was 12, as such, he had failed in the interview and, therefore, there was no question of grant of any preference to him. It is also submitted that the marks obtained by the appellant-petitioner in the written test as well as in the interview were made known to him much earlier and at no stage he had challenged the same. It is only in the special appeal that the appellant-petitioner has come with the plea of manipulation in the marks obtained by him in the interview which shall not be considered at this stage.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondents that the perusal of chart annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents will clearly demonstrates that the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test were typed whereas the marks obtained by them in the interview were handwritten. There was no question of any manipulation in the marks given to appellant-petitioner in the interview. There was no overwriting. The appellant-petitioner had obtained only 9 marks in the interview and, as such, he had failed in the interview and, therefore, could not be selected.
We have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the record.
We are of the considered view that so far as the question of grant of preference to the appellant-petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute to the legal proposition that the preference to an apprentice could be extended only in case other things are equal and in case of equal merit. In the present case, the appellant-petitioner had failed in the interview as he could not obtained minimum marks prescribed in the interview. The grant of preference could have arisen only in case the appellant-petitioner had qualified the written test as well as the interview. Since he had failed in the interview, as such, there was no question of grant of preference to him because he was in a different category with respect to persons who had qualified the written test and the interview.
So far as the contention of learned counsel for appellant-petitioner that there was manipulation in the marks obtained by the appellant-petitioner in the interview is concerned, the contention of the appellant-petitioner even if accepted to the extent that there was some overwriting in the marks given to him in the interview; then, also it does not lead to conclusion that the appellant-petitioner had in any manner obtained more than 12 marks in the interview which was necessary to qualify the interview.
We have perused the photocopy of the chart annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents giving the details of the marks obtained by the candidates in the selection for the post in question. We are satisfied that there is no manipulation in the marks given to the appellant-petitioner in the interview.
In view of above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment.
The special appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
[Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Santosh/-