Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mukul Gidwoni vs State (Transport Dep )Ors on 4 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10869 / 2016
Mukul Gidwani
----Petitioner
Versus
State (Transport Dep )Ors
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5190 / 2016 Naresh Kumar Meena
----Petitioner Versus State (Transport Dep )Ors
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5540 / 2016 Robin Singh
----Petitioner Versus State (Transport Dep )Anr
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6216 / 2016 Ashok Kaviya
----Petitioner Versus State (Transport Dep )Anr
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8238 / 2016 Ashok Kumar Meena&Anr
----Petitioner Versus (2 of 6) [ CW-10869/2016] R P S C Ajmer &Anr
----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi Mr. Hem Singh Rathore Mr. Himanshu Jain Mr. Karan Pal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Bhatt AGC Mr. S.S. Raghav Mr. Dilip Singh Shekhawat _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Judgment 04/05/2017 By this common order, bunch of writ petitions filed by various persons who have been denied appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector shall be decided together, as the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the only issue raised before this Court is whether the experience certificate of the petitioners have been properly evaluated by the Committee constituted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called 'RPSC').
Briefly stated, the RPSC on 6.8.2013 issued an advertisement for recruitment of 146 posts of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. One of the condition prescribed in the advertisement reads as under:-
"(3) Working experience of at least one year in a reputed Automobile Workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods (3 of 6) [ CW-10869/2016] vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engines;"
A perusal of the above said condition reveals that a candidate should have worked in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with Petrol and Diesel.
Mukul Gidwani, petitioner to SBCWP No.10869/2016, had tendered experience certificate (Annexure-10) issued by Modern Hyundai, wherein it was stated that the petitioner has been engaged in repair of diesel and petrol vehicles. In the case of the petitioner, an objection was raised that he was not engaged in repair of heavy motor vehicles.
Naresh Kumar Meena petitioner to SBCWP No.5190/2016 had produced experience certificate (Annexure-5 and 9), issued by Jaipur Auto Service, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was engaged in repair of Petrol and Diesel engines fitted in Heavy and Light vehicles. In his case, objection has been taken that Jaipur Auto Service is authorized dealer of Ashock Leyland and Ashok Leyland is not manufacturer of petrol vehicles.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Jaipur Auto Service, where the petitioner was working in a workshop, undertakes repair of all kinds of vehicles.
Robin Singh, petitioner to SBCWP No.5540/2016, has produced experience certificate (Annexure-3) issued by Mahindra and Mahindra Company. In his case, objection has been taken that (4 of 6) [ CW-10869/2016] at the said service centre, petrol vehicles are not repaired.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the certificates annexed with the petition wherein it is stated that Mahindra and Mahindra Company also manufacture Petrol vehicles and they also repair the said vehicles at the service centre where petitioner was working.
Ashok Kaviya petitioner to SBCWP No.6216/2016, has produced experience certificate (Annexure-6), issued by Rajasthan Diesel Motor. This is service centre of Ashok Leyland. In his case, objection was taken that Ashok Leyland is not manufacturer of Petrol vehicles and hence, the petitioner has no experience of Petrol vehicles. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to another experience certificate issued by Arti Motors, which is authorized Bosch service centre. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at Bosch Service Centre, Petrol vehicles are also repaired.
Ashok Kumar Meena, petitioner to SBCWP No.8238/2016, had produced experience certificate (Annexure-4) issued by Rajesh Motors, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was engaged in repair of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passengers vehicles, fitted with petrol and diesel engines.
The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Committee appointed by RPSC without visiting workshops, evaluated experience certificate of candidates in the office. It is submitted that the report of Committee ought not to (5 of 6) [ CW-10869/2016] be accepted as the petitioners who have made to the merit list, have been ousted to favour less meritorious candidates.
Mr. S.S. Raghav counsel appearing for RPSC and Mr. N.K. Bhatt, the learned Addl. Government Counsel appearing for the respondent State could not divulge the criteria adopted by the Committee to evaluate the experience certificates produced by the candidates. They have been unable to allay the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their experience certificates were rejected to favour those persons who were lower in merit.
This Court cannot determine the veracity of the experience certificates annexed with the writ petitions. This Court has neither the necessary expertise nor adequate knowledge to determine whether the experience certificate produced by the petitioners satisfy the condition no.3 of the advertisement. This court however, is conscious that feeling entertained by the petitioners that they have been unfairly dealt with, ought to be set at rest. Therefore, the present writ petitions are disposed of, by issuing following directions:-
(i) That the Commissioner, Transport, shall constitute a three member Committee which shall be headed by a young IAS Officer, preferably who has obtained a degree in the engineering. Other two members of the Committee will be an Automobile Engineer and Chief Executive Officer of State Motor Garage.
(ii) That Committee on the anvil of the condition no.3 of the advertisement shall evaluate the experience certificate produced (6 of 6) [ CW-10869/2016] by the petitioners before RPSC.
(iii) A representative of RPSC shall produce experience certificates of each petitioners before the said Committee.
(iv) The petitioners shall also be afforded opportunity of hearing by the Committee.
(v) The Committee after evaluation of experience certificate shall submit its report within one month. The report to be submitted by the Committee shall be binding upon RPSC and the petitioners.
(vi) No further challenge or objection thereof shall be entertained.
Copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to Mr. N.K. Bhatt AGC and Mr. S.S. Raghav, counsel for the respondents, for onward transmission and necessary compliance.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Mak/-