Punjab-Haryana High Court
Basant vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 July, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CWP No.12304 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12304 of 2012
Date of decision: 13.7.2012
Basant ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
CWP No.12972 of 2012
Naresh Kumar ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission & anr. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner in
CWP No.12304 of 2012.
Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner in
CWP No.12972 of 2012.
Mr. Hitinder Singh Lalli, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
By this judgment two aforesaid writ petitions which have been filed on similar facts and wherein common grounds have been raised are being disposed of.
The respondents vide an advertisement dated 18th March, 2011, which was published on 19th March, 2011 in various newspapers, published 1000 posts of Assistant Lineman in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, including various other posts. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 6th April 2011 which was published in various newspapers on 7th April, 2011, was issued notifying that the age of the candidates should be between 18 to 35 years instead of 18 to 40 years, as advertised earlier. Respondent CWP No.12304 of 2012 2 No.3 further issued a corrigendum dated 1st July, 2011, according to which the posts of Assistant Lineman were enhanced from 1000 to 4131.
In response to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners in both the writ petitions applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Lineman. Thereafter, after completion of the process of short listing of candidates, the petitioners were called for interview for the post of Assistant Lineman as they were fulfilling all the required qualifications.
However, when they approached respondent No.2 for interview, the petitioners were denied the interview stating the reason that the Diploma of IIT obtained by the petitioners is not from an Institute recognized by the State of Haryana as the same was obtained from a private institute and thus, the petitioners were not found eligible for the post of ALM and were refused to be interviewed.
Challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents it is stated that as per the advertisement, the petitioners were fulfilling all the eligible qualifications and in pursuance of their applications, respondent No.2 after due scrutiny of the documents, had issued the interview letters to them to appear for interview and therefore, the respondents were estopped from taking such a frivolous objection for denying the petitioners their right of consideration for the said post. Noticing the aforesaid contention, this Court passed the following order on 5.7.2012:
"One of the contentions raised before this Court is that inspite of the fact that the petitioner was present before the respondent-authorities on 5.6.2012, he has been denied opportunity of being interviewed without any rhyme or reason.
Notice of motion.CWP No.12304 of 2012 3
At the asking of the Court, Mr. H.S.Lalli, Addl.A.G. Haryana accepts notice.
Let a copy of this petition be supplied to learned State counsel during the course of the day.
List on 9.7.2012."
Upon notice, a short reply has been filed on behalf of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. The relevant part of the aforesaid reply filed in CWP No.12304 of 2012 reads thus:
"In this connection, it is, respectfully, submitted that the petitioner has obtained the certification in Electrician trade (Annexure P-3 & P-4) from the institute namely Model Industrial Training Institute, Rewari and the said institute issued the certificate under its own authority. The said institute has not been authorized by the ITI Department, Haryana to run such course as per their letter dated 14.5.2012 (Annexure R-2/1). In the list of private institutes which have been allowed to run such course, the name of the Model Industrial Training Institute, Rewari has also not been included, a list of such institutes is attached as Annexure R-2/2. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for interview and while scrutinizing the documents at the time of interview he was denied to conduct the interview. It is further submitted that the interview of the candidates namely Manjeet Kumar S/o Vazir Singh, Village & Post Office Samaspur Majra, Distt. Jhajjar (Roll No.000806) and Manjeet S/o Mohan Lal, Village Asadpur Khera, PO CWP No.12304 of 2012 4 Ahri, Distt. Jhajjar (Roll No.012605) as mentioned in para 5 has been conducted inadvertently and that these candidates along with such other candidates, if any, shall be considered ineligible and their candidate will be rejected by the Commission. However, no record is available in respect of Annu S/o Hargyan, resident of Sunariya, Tehsil and Distt. Rohtak. Hence, no valid cause of action subsists to the petitioner in the present writ petition."
It is also relevant to notice the essential qualifications as laid down vide advertisement dated 19.3.2011 Annexure P-1 which reads thus:
"E.Q. i) Matric with 2 years ITI in Electrician/Wireman trade or having 2 years Vocational Course under the trade of Lineman or Electrician (Maintenance and Repair of Electrical and Domestic Appliances) conducted by Director, Industrial Training & Vocational Education, Haryana or National Apprenticeship certificate awarded under the Apprenticeship Act 1961 from any institute recognized by the State Government.
ii) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard."
A perusal of the aforesaid prescribed qualification would
show that it has been specifically mentioned that two years Diploma in Industrial Training and Vocational Education, etc. should be from any Institute recognized by the State Government. Admittedly, as per the list supplied by the Government, the institutes from where the petitioners have obtained these diplomas are not recognized by the State of Haryana. CWP No.12304 of 2012 5
Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the right of the employer to prescribe eligibility conditions for judging the suitability of the candidates. Equally it is well established that there is no estoppel against law. Thus, even if petitioners were called for interview by mistake, the respondents were well within their rights to refuse to interview them after detecting that the petitioners were not having the requisite qualifications.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have referred to the averments made in the writ petition alleging that many such candidates who had obtained Diplomas/Certificates from various institutes, which are not recognized by the State of Haryana, have been interviewed by the respondents for appointment to the post of ALM and therefore, the petitioners cannot be discriminated. Even if the respondents have interviewed some candidates who are not having the requisites qualifications, will not give a right to the petitioners to claim equality as it is well established that a person cannot claim right of equality for an illegal thing. In any case, in the written statement filed on behalf of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, a categoric stand has been taken that interviews of such persons having similar qualifications as that of petitioners have been conducted inadvertently and their candidature shall be rejected by the Commission.
Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions from Sh. PD. Verma, Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, has taken a specific stand that candidature of all such candidates who are not having requisite qualifications, as alleged in this petition, shall be rejected by respondent No.2 and their candidature to the said post will not be considered.
CWP No.12304 of 2012 6
No other point has been argued.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these petitions.
Dismissed.
July 13, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps JUDGE
CWP No.12304 of 2012 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12972 of 2012 Date of decision: 13.7.2012 Naresh Kumar ......Petitioner(s) Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission & anr. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Man Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
For orders, see CWP No.12304 of 2012.
July 13, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE