Madhya Pradesh High Court
Diwakar Patel vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2015
Author: M. C. Garg
Bench: M. C. Garg
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 10416 OF 2014
Diwakar Patel Petitioner
versus
Union of India & others Respondents
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. C. Garg
.................................................................................................
Shri Pushpendra Dubey with Shri Rahul Rawat for the
petitioner.
Shri J. K. Jain for respondent no. 1.
Shri S. S. Chauhan for respondent no. 3
...................................................................................................
ORDER
(29/04/15) Calling in question tenability of an order dated 6 th September, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur in O. A. No. 448/12 rejecting an application filed by the applicant, this writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
2. In pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Management of Vehicle Factory Jabalpur through the Ordnance Factory Board vide Annexure A-1 dated 11 th March, 2011, petitioner claims to be eligible and sought appointment on the post of 'Examiner Engineer' (semi-skilled). Petitioner is said to have appeared in the examination as he had the requisite eligibility criteria and qualification. He passed the written examination and the trade test conducted on 8/08/11. Thereafter, it is said that on 10/09/11, his name was recommended for appointment. Police verification was also done but subsequently, he has been denied appointment on the 2 ground that the qualification of diploma in Mechanical Engineering obtained by the petitioner is not in accordance with the requirement of the rule.
3. According to the petitioner, in the advertisement Annexure A-1 in the qualification column pertaining to educational criteria i.e. column no. 5, the eligibility criteria fixed was a certificate from the relevant trade, from the National Council for Vocational Training or failing which an I. T. I. or an equivalent Diploma Certificate. It is said that petitioner holds a Diploma from the Board of Technical Education, Lucknow Annexure A-2. This qualification is the equivalent Diploma Certificate qualification but based on the clarification received from the Ordnance Factory Board on 21/10/11, that is subsequent to the advertisement, petitioner is denied appointment.
4. Shri Rahul Rawat took us through the material available on record and submitted that even though, petitioner is qualified and he is having a diploma certificate but based on the clarification received on 21.10.11, petitioner is denied the benefit.
5. We have considered the aforesaid submission of Shri Rawat and we find that in the qualification prescribed, the relevant qualification is National Council for Vocational Training Certificate (NCVT certificate) in the relevant trade failing which an ITI or an equivalent diploma certificate holders are eligible.
6. Admittedly, the certificate available with the petitioner is Annexure A/2 a three year diploma in Mechanical Engineering (Automobile). The question is whether it fulfils the criteria laid down in the SRO. The learned Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter and it is found by the Tribunal that the essential qualification prescribed under the rule is NCVT certificate in the relevant trade failing which an I. T. I. or an equivalent diploma certificate is eligible.
37. As far as equivalence of the qualification held by the petitioner is concerned, the Tribunal has found that the Ordnance Factory Board is the expert authority and the Board having opined that the certificate of the petitioner is not at all equivalent to the qualification prescribed, the learned Tribunal has refused to interfere into the matter. In para 27, the Tribunal has discussed the matter in the following manner :-
In the instant case, as already observed, the essential qualification prescribed for semi-skilled workman for the trades at Annexure A appended under the rules is NCVT certificate in the relevant trades, failing which by ITI or equivalent diploma/degree holder as prescribed at entry No. 5 of the Schedule, appended with the rules. The Ordnance Factory Board is the competent authority to take a decision in relation to prescribed qualification under column 8 of the schedule. The question whether a qualification is equivalent to the prescribed qualification or not, and the Board has clarified that degree and diploma in Engineering , cannot be accepted as qualification for direct recruitment to the semi-
skilled posts, and in view of the above clarification, the applicants, who admittedly do not possess the NCVT certificate or ITI, cannot claim that they were eligible for direct recruitment to semi-skilled post at Annexure A to the SRO 185 of 1994.
(Emphasis supplied)
8. It is found by the Tribunal that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requisite qualification and, therefore, we see no reason warranting reconsideration into the matter. Petitioner's contention that he holds an equivalent certificate is to be examined by the experts in view of the law laid down 4 by the Supreme Court and relied upon by the Central Administrative Tribunal and in the impugned order, the Tribunal has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ashish Pratap Singh & another Vs. State of M. P. & others ILR 2013 M. P. 605 and has held that once,the expert like the Ordnance Factory Board which is the competent authority under the S. R. O. has given its opinion, the Tribunal cannot sit over the same as an appellate authority and deal with the matter.
9. We find that the Tribunal has decided the matter in accordance with the requirement of law and no further indulgence now in this writ petition is called for.
10. The petition is therefore dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) (M. C. Garg)
JUDGE JUDGE
Vy*