Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammad Ali vs Union Of India on 3 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 RAJ 512
Bench: Sangeet Lodha, Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 128/2020
Mohammad Ali S/o Sattar Ali, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Muslim,
R/o Plot Number 01, R.P.S. Colony, Rawat Bhata, Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Chairman, Atomic Energy
Commission, Department Of Atomic Energy, Anushakti
Bhawan, Mumbai.
2. The Managing Director, Nuclear Power Corporation Of
India Limited, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai.
3. The Manager (Human Resource Management), Nuclear
Power Corporation Of India Limited, Rawatbhata,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.A.Siddiqui
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, ASG
(Through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Judgment (Per Hon'ble Sangeet Lodha)J. 03/12/2020
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 20 th January, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the condition no.9 (2) of the advertisement no.2/2019 issued by Nuclear Power Corporation India Limited ("NPCIL"), prescribing (Downloaded on 03/12/2020 at 08:39:01 PM) (2 of 6) [SAW-128/2020] eligibility qualification for recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Trainee (ST/TM)-Maintainer, has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant are that NPCIL issued an advertisement inviting online applications for recruitment to inter-alia the post of Stipendiary Trainee (ST/TM)-Maintainer. The eligibility qualification prescribed for the recruitment to the said post was as under :
"1. SSC (10 years) with minimum 50% in Science subject and Mathematics individually and 2 years ITI certificate in relevant trade (Electrician), Fitter, Electronics, Instrumentation, Machinist, Turner & Welder.)
2. For trades for which the duration of the ITI course is less than 2 years, the candidates shall have at least one year relevant working experience after completion of the course.
3. Shall have English as one of the subjects at least at SSC level examination."
3. Precisely, the case set out by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that respondents are not justified in prescribing 50% marks in subjects Mathematics and Science individually in Secondary Examination inasmuch as the basic requirement for the recruitment to the post concerned is ITI and not Secondary Examination.
4. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine holding that prescription of qualification and eligibility requirement is discretion vested in the employer and the Court cannot be an expert to decide as what should be the eligibility criteria.
5. Pursuant to the notice of the special appeal issued by this Court, the respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition justifying the eligibility qualification prescribed as aforesaid. (Downloaded on 03/12/2020 at 08:39:01 PM)
(3 of 6) [SAW-128/2020] 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while
reiterating the stand taken before the learned Single Judge, contended that when technical qualification ITI is prescribed for the technical post, the requirement of minimum marks in Secondary School Examination is not justified. Learned counsel submitted that a candidate acquires eligibility to get admission in ITI only after passing the Secondary School Examination irrespective of the minimum marks in any of the subjects and thus, there is no justification for prescribing criteria of minimum marks in Secondary Examination when the candidate has already acquired the eligibility of ITI. Learned counsel further submitted that when the eligibility qualification prescribed by the employer is irrational or arbitrary, the same can always be subject to judicial review and thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the discretion vested in the employer in prescribing eligibility qualification cannot be interfered with by the Court. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Procedure & Guidelines issued by the NPCIL for recruitment of Stipendiary Trainees ST/SA (Category-I) and ST/TM (Category-II), learned counsel submitted that for the Category-I posts, no such requirement of minimum pass marks is prescribed and thus, the action of the respondents in prescribing the minimum pass marks in Secondary Examination for the recruitment to the Category-II posts is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary.
7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Procedure and Guidelines issued by the NPCIL prescribing the norms governing recruitment to the various posts has not been challenged by the appellant in the writ petition or in the special appeal and therefore, the isolated (Downloaded on 03/12/2020 at 08:39:01 PM) (4 of 6) [SAW-128/2020] challenge to the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement cannot be entertained by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the eligibility qualification prescribed for the post is Secondary Examination with 50% marks in subjects Science and Mathematics individually and 2 years ITI certificate and not the ITI certificate alone as claimed by the appellant and thus, the contention raised by the appellant that the ITI being the basic qualification, there is no justification in prescribing minimum pass marks in the previous examination i.e. Secondary Examination, is devoid of any merit. Learned counsel submitted that the suitability of the candidate for appointment to the post shall be tested in the rigorous pre-induction training of 2 years on various systems in technically advanced Nuclear Power Plant of NPCIL for which candidates having high standard/ high percentage of marks are required to be recruited as the plants of NPCIL are technically advanced and highly sensitive and it cannot afford any lapses or shortcomings of its employees due to very large and disastrous consequences in case any error is committed by its employees. Learned counsel submitted that as employer, the NPCIL has right to crave for the best talent available and thus, the eligibility criteria laid down after thoughtful consideration which was prevalent even in the year 1986 cannot be faulted with and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.(s) 4597/2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s) 8494/2018 "The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warde & Ors." and connected appeals, dated 3.5.2019 and in Appeal (Civil) No.11453/1996 "Secretary (Health) Deptt of Health and F.W. & Anr. Vs. Dr. Anita Puri & Ors." dated (Downloaded on 03/12/2020 at 08:39:01 PM) (5 of 6) [SAW-128/2020] 30.8.96, learned counsel submitted that the decision of the expert body of the employer in prescribing the eligibility qualification for recruitment to the specified posts, cannot be interfered with by the Court.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
9. It is settled law that the determination of the eligibility qualification for recruitment to any post is prerogative of employer and ordinarily, the Court cannot intermeddle in such matter. A perusal of the Procedure and Guidelines issued by the NPCIL reveal that the objective of the company is building up of human resource of the requisite caliber and competence in functional spheres and levels and more significantly in the core scientific and technical areas. If taking into consideration the duties to be discharged by the technical post holders, the expert body of employer- NPCIL has prescribed the qualification with minimum pass marks, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the employer based on expert advice. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Anil Kumr Das (Civil Appeal No.3602/2020) decided on 3.11.2020, "It is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualification for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the Court for the employer to prescribe qualification for any post. There is a rational behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment, as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the (Downloaded on 03/12/2020 at 08:39:01 PM) (6 of 6) [SAW-128/2020] same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily and fancifully in prescribing qualification for the post.
10. In our considered opinion, having regard to the requirement of the post, the eligibility qualification prescribed by the respondent employer keeping in view its objectives cannot be said to be fanciful or arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
12. No case for interference by us in exercise of the intra-court appeal jurisdiction is made out.
13. The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
RP/-
(Downloaded on 03/12/2020 at 08:39:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)