Madras High Court
Union Of India vs The Registrar on 13 October, 2014
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, K.K.Sasidharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.10.2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.No.16564 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Union of India, represented by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, No.5, Dr.P.V.Cherian Crescent Road, (Behind Ethiraj College), Egmore, Chennai-600 008. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennani-600 104. 2.K.Aswini Kumar 3.The Regional Director, Directorate General of Employment & Training, Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records of the first respondent in O.A.No.377 of 2012 including the order dated 13.3.2014 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vellaiswamy for Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Gnanasekar for R-2 Reserved on : 08.10.2014 - - - - - ORDER
The second respondent, i.e., the applicant before the Tribunal, had undergone apprenticeship training under the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1961, after having passed 10th standard examination, for a period of four years in the trade of Mechanic Machine Tool Maintenance and passed the trade test conducted by the National Council Vocational Training, Government of India. The petitioner issued a notification on 21.3.2009, inviting applications for appointment on various posts, including the post in question, i.e. Technician Gr.III / Diesel Mechanic / Millwright Fitter. The required qualification for the same as prescribed in the notification was Course completed Act Apprentices / ITI in the Trade of Fitter / Millwright Maintenance Mechanic / Mechanic Motor Vehicle / Tractor Mechanic / Mechanic Diesel / Heat Engine.
2.The second respondent made an application stating his qualification as Act Apprentice / ITI Fitter. On the basis of which, the second respondent was permitted to write the written examination held on 30.01.2011 and also was called for verification of original certificates in the office of the Railway Recruitment Board on 18.10.2011. The second respondent attended the office for verification of original certificate. On enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had obtained National Apprenticeship Certificate in the trade of Mechanic Machine Tool Maintenance as evident from the certificate found at page 5 of the typed set. Accordingly, he could not be selected as the said trade was not the required qualification under the notification for the post for which he had made an application. The second respondent made a representation on 23.12.2011 for inclusion of his name in the select list. He was informed that he did not possess required qualification as notified. A clarification was obtained from the third respondent vide letter dated 6.3.2012, clarifying that as per the trades designated under Apprentices Act, 1961, the trade of Mechanic Machine Tool Maintenance is covered under Group No.6, i.e. Maintenance Trade Group. The petitioner did not agree with the clarification given by the third respondent and as such, the representation was rejected.
3.Being aggrieved, the second respondent preferred the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to the first respondent to include his name in the list of selected candidates for the post of Technician Grade-III/Diesel Mechanic/Millwright Fitter published by the respondent based on the Notification No.JEN.No.01/2009 dated 21.3.2009.
4.The case of the second respondent / applicant before the Tribunal was that the third respondent herein was the competent authority to issue the certificate and as such, the applicant / second respondent was qualified to be considered for the relevant trade as per the notification. The case of the writ petitioner before the Tribunal was that the required qualification under the notification was an apprenticeship in the trade of Fitter and not in the trade of Mechanic Machine Tool Maintenance. The third respondent herein is not the competent authority to grant equivalent certificate and also the notification does not prescribe for equal certificate. It was further contended that the qualification of the applicant/ second respondent was not suited to the post of Technician Gr.III/ Diesel Mechanic/Millwright Fitter.
5.The Tribunal, having considered all aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion as under :
9.....It is seen from the letter of the 2nd respondent to the Principal, Technical Training Centre, ICF, Chennai dated 06.3.2012, which is also reflected in para-4 of the reply statement, disclosing that the syllabus for the Millwright maintenance Mechanic under the Craftsmen Training Scheme is being entirely covered in the trade of MMTM under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and the candidates who have undergone 4 years apprenticeship training in the trade are equally qualified in the relevant trade and therefore, the MMTM qualified apprentices could also be considered for Millwright Mechanic/Millwright Fitter trade jobs.....
6.Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent before the Tribunal preferred the present writ petition. The petitioner has made similar submissions before this court. In addition, it was submitted that originally 10 vacancies have been notified for SC community which was subsequently enhanced to 14 and the panel for all 14 was issued. The first panel of 11 was issued on 30.11.2011 and remaining for 3 on 02.02.2012. Thus, there is no vacancy as directed to consider the applicant/second respondent for appointment.
7.We have carefully considered and examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the records. The qualification, as notified, has specified the requirement, i.e., course completed Act Apprentices / ITI in the Trade of Fitter / Millwright Maintenance Mechanic / Mechanic Motor Vehicle / Tractor Mechanic / Mechanic Diesel / Heat Engine. It does not specify that in addition to the specified trade, there can be any other equivalent qualification and as such, equalisation certificate given by the third respondent herein is of no relevance. Even otherwise, the third respondent herein is not a part of the recruitment Board or scheme and as such he cannot be held as competent to grant equalisation certificate. There is no dispute that the trade qualification obtained by the second respondent / applicant is not a qualification, which is required under the notification. The Tribunal had relied on the communication dated 6.3.2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Directorate General of Employment & Training, Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training, wherein it was observed as follows :
From the above, it could be seen that the syllabus for the Millwright Maintenance Mechanic under the Craftsmen Training Scheme (CTS) is being entirely covered in the trade of MMTM under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. Hence, the candidates who have undergone 4 years apprenticeship training in the trade are equally qualified in the relevant trade.
8.The said communication cannot be of any help to the second respondent / applicant as the notification for appointment was issued on 21.3.2009 for the examination to be held on 30.1.2011. Thus, the subsequent communication dated 6.3.2012 cannot have retrospective effect.
9.Even if it is presumed for the sake of discussion without accepting that the applicant / second respondent had equal qualification or subject matter was same, which he had undergone in his apprentice certificate, the applicant / second respondent cannot be given any benefit as the qualification prescribed in the notification does not specify any other equivalent qualification. Permitting the petitioner on the basis of having equal qualification will strike at the root of the constitutional scheme as prescribed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as similarly situated candidates having equal qualification on the basis of the notification had not chosen to make an application for consideration. Thus, the applicant / second respondent cannot be held as qualified for the post he had applied.
10.It is trite law that it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the minimum qualification for any post. The Courts and Tribunals should be circumspect in interpreting or interfering with the qualification prescribed unless the same is irrational, irrelevant and unconstitutional.
11.The Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration Vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie and others (2011) 9 SCC 645 analysed various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court earlier and laid down a well settled principle of law in respect of prescription of minimum qualification for recruitment, which reads as under :
22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned so long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violative of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (See J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P. and P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General.) In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribe such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of PhD is unreasonable.
12.As a result, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13.3.2014 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the original application filed by the applicant / second respondent herein before the Tribunal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.K.A., J.) (K.K.S., J.)
13.10.2014
Index : Yes/No
vvk
To
1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennani-600 104.
2.The Regional Director,
Directorate General of Employment & Training,
Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship Training,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
and
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
vvk
ORDER IN
W.P.No.16564 of 2014
13.10.2014