Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ex Cfn Ashok Singh vs State (Dep Of Transport )Anr on 6 February, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8029/2011)
Ex Cfn Ashok Singh aged about 41 years s/o Shri Magan Singh by Cast Rajput
resident of "Laxmi Kirana Store" Sunder Nagar, Ward No.9, Madan Gunj,
Kishangarh District Ajmer.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary to the Department of Transport,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Chairman Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through the Secretary.
3. The Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Defence New Delhi-110011.
4. The Director General Re-Settlement, Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
New Delhi-110011.
5. 101440 Jabbar Singh Udawat] all C/o Chairman RPSC, Ajmer.
6. 101545 Dinesh Singh ]
7. 100782 Bhagwan Singh ]
8. 101238 Hem Singh ]
...Respondents
Date of Order: February 6th, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for RPSC.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate & AAG with
Mr. M.S. Shiromani Sharma, for the State.
Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Senior Advocate & ASG with
Mrs. Manjeet Kaur, for respondents No.3&4.
BY THE COURT:
The issue in the writ petition is with regard to the right of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector against the quota of Ex-serviceman pursuant to 2 advertisement No.4/Pariksha `Kha'/Mo-.Va.Yu.Ni./20082009/314 dated 26-7-2008 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) published in Rojgar Sandesh issue of 1-8-2008.
The eligibility prescribed for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector under the Rajashan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1963') as also set out in the advertisement is/ was that the candidate must have passed Senior Secondary/ Higher Secondary examination from a recognised Board and must have also acquired a diploma in Automobile Engineering (Three years course)/ Diploma in Mechanical Engineering (Three Years Course) from the Rajasthan Technical Education Board or any qualification recognised equivalent thereto by the Central or State Government. Other requirements for eligibility are not in issue and hence not adverted to.
The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 26-7-2008, fancying himself eligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, he applied therefor, and was permitted to write the examination held on 28/29-6-2009. On passing the written examination, he was called for an interview. Apparently successful he was informed on 26-5-2011 of his provisional selection to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector subject to 3 verification of his educational qualifications. The petitioner thereupon submitted requisite documents relating to his Higher Secondary Examination and the certificate of Vehicle Mechanic (VM) Class-I issued by the Army authority purportedly equivalent to a three year Diploma in Mechanical Engineering as prescribed for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. The petitioner's case is that in terms of the notification issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) on 12-2-1986 amending the Ex-servicemen (Re- Employment in Central Services & Posts) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1979'). Vehicle Mechanic Class-I [NCO Code No.B- 845.10] proficiency certificate dated 30-9-2001 acquired from the Corps of Electronics & Mechanical Engineering, EME Centre, Secunderabad, issued by the MGO's Branch (Integrated Headquarters) New Delhi, is equivalent to a three year Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and so also endorsed by the Director Sainik Kalyan Department, Government of Rajasthan under his letter dated 2-6-2011. The said documents of equivalence were made available to RPSC, yet vide impugned order dated 21-10-2011 the petitioner's candidature was cancelled on the ground that the Mechanical Class- I Trade Proficiency certificate furnished by him with regard to his technical qualification was not equivalent to a three year diploma in Mechanical Engineering. Resultantly the petitioner has wrongly 4 been held without the requisite educational qualification as prescribed under the Rules of 1963 and the advertisement dated 26- 7-2008 for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. Hence this petition.
In reply to the petition, RPSC's case is that 66 posts of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspectors under the Rules of 1963 were advertised on 26-7-2008 for being filled through a competitive examination. In terms of corrigendum dated 18-8-2008, it was provided that the requisite academic qualification, technical qualification, experience and driving licence for the post in issue had to be obtained by the prospective candidates till the last date of filing the application forms i.e. 6-9-2008. The petitioner did apply for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector and write the examination. He passed it and was provisionally called for the interview on 7-6-2011. However, at the relevant time he did not possess the educational qualification as prescribed under the Rules of 1963, and therefore did not find a place in the select list. His candidature was rejected by the impugned letter dated 21-10-2011. It has been submitted that the qualification possessed by the petitioner was not as required under the Rules of 1963. The Mechanical Motor Vehicle Class-I proficiency certificate dated 30-9-2001 from the Corps of Electronics & Mechanical Engineer, EME Centre, Secunderabad has 5 not been declared to be equivalent to the Three year Diploma in Automobile Engineering/ Mechanical Engineering either by the Central Government or the State Government. It has been submitted that the matter has been considered at the level of the State Government and as per communication dated 28-7-2011 under the hand of the Director, Technical Education Board to the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, the certificate of the petitioner (Mechanic Motor Vehicle Class-I) has not been considered to be equivalent to the Three year Diploma in Automobile Engineering/ Mechanical Engineering qualification as prescribed under the Rules of 1963--an essential qualification at the minimum for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector. Therefore the petitioner was not eligible for appointment to the said post in the quota of Ex- servicemen or otherwise.
It is no doubt true that a quota of 12.5% of the vacancies inter alia obtains for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector, for Ex- servicemen under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Absorption of Ex- servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1988'). But for availing the aforesaid quota the candidate has to necessarily establish that he has the statutorily prescribed eligibility for the post in issue with reference to the relevant recruitment Rules. The qualification for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector under the Rules of 1963 as also advertised on 26-7-2008, 6 required the candidates to possess aside of Higher Secondary/ Senior Secondary certificate from a recognised Board of State Government/ Central Government, also to have acquired the qualification of Diploma in Automobile Engineering/ Mechanical Engineering (Three Years Course) recognised by the Rajasthan Technical Education Board or such course as recognised equivalent by the Central Government/ State Government. The petitioner does not admittedly have the qualification of a three year diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering from a University/ Board recognised by the Rajasthan Technical Education Board. The question is whether he has the equivalent qualification recognised by the State Government or the Central Government. The petitioner states he does. The burden is his to discharge.
For that, counsel for the petitioner referred to notification dated 12-2-1986, whereby the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Service and Posts) Rules, 1979 were amended and after Rule 6(3) another sub rule was inserted providing that for appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group C post a matriculate ex-serviceman who has put in 15 years or more of service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment for the posts for which the essential qualification prescribed is graduation. Attention of the court was also drawn to another amendment by the said notification dated 12-2-1986 7 where following the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979, another rule was inserted providing that when in the case of direct recruitment sufficient number of ex-servicemen candidates were not available on the basis of general standards to fill all vacancies reserved for them, they be selected under a relaxed standard of selection to make up the deficiency in the reserved quota subject to the condition that such relaxation not affect the level of performance of such candidates. Counsel also pointed out the instructions for the use of guide to Army Trades in employment exchanges for the purpose of providing equivalence of Army Trades with Civil Trades for facilitating effective assistance in placement of ex-servicemen on the basis of the latest National Classification of Occupation (NCO) Code on the pattern of International Standard Classification of Occupation (ISCO) 1966. Therein a Vehicle Mechanic Class I (B-845-10) has been equated as fit to work as Foreman mechanic, Mechanic, Fitter, assembler of various kind. Reliance was also placed on the OM of November, 1985 issued by the Director General of Employment Exchange in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on the equation of trade of Indian Armed Forces with civil occupations to facilitate the re-employment of Ex-servicemen on suitable jobs in civil posts through Employment Exchanges.
Per contra, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, submitted that from documents annexed to the petition and relied upon in court by counsel for the 8 petitioner recognition of the petitioner's Trade certification as Vehicle Mechanic Class-I ( NCO Code No.B-845.10) by the Army Authority as equivalent to a three year diploma in Automobile/ Mechanical Engineering not established. More importantly as required by the Rules of 1963 and conditions of advertisement there is not a whisper about the recognition of equivalence either by the Central or the State Government. Hence the petitioner was/ is not entitled to appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector under the Rules of 1963 in the quota of 12.5% for Ex-Servicemen notwithstanding or otherwise.
Heard. Considered.
Neither reliance by the counsel for the petitioner on the amendment notification dated 12-2-1986 nor on the instructions issued by the Director General Employment Exchange as a guide for equating trade certification issued by the Army Authorities with posts in the Civil Sector nor, for that matter, the circular dated 27- 1-2012 on equation of service trade/ civil trade issued by the Ministry of Defence Government of India based on the equation of the Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour and Employment is of any avail to the petitioner's case.
I am of the considered view that the amendment to the Rules of 1979 by notification dated 12-2-1986 nowhere equates the petitioner's trade certificate as a Mechanical Motor Vehicle Class-I 9 with a three year diploma in Mechanical/ Automobile Engineering. The notification does indeed vest discretion in the competent authority under the Rules of 1979 to resort to lower standard/s for recruitment of the Ex-servicemen to vacancies on a post in the reserved quota, not filled up, however consonant with capacity of the candidate so selected, to discharge the job in issue to requisite levels of performance. Such discretion however does not vest under the Rules of 1963 nor has it being so argued by counsel for the petitioner. Recruitment to the post of Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector has to be made strictly within the eligibility parameters set out in the Rules of 1963. Reliance by counsel for the petitioner on the notification dated 12-2-1986 and resultant amendment to the Rules of 1979 is thus of no avail for this reason. As far as the instructions for use as guide to equivalence of army trades with certain Civil Trades issued by the Director General Employment Exchanges and reiterated subsequently by the Army authorities is concerned, a bare perusal thereof evidences that the Trade certification of MV Class-I issued to the petitioner on 30-9-2001 from the Corps of Electronics & Mechanical engineering EME Centre Secunderabad has been equated to the post of mechanical Foreman/ mechanic of various kinds. It cannot be construed to constitute equivalence of the petitioner's MV Class-I certification with a three year diploma in Automobile/ Mechanical Engineering. In the facts recorded above, 10 the letter dated 2-6-2001 issued by the Director Sainik Kalyan Department stating that the petitioner's MV Class-I Trade Certificate issued on 30-9-2001 (NCO Code B 845.10) was equivalent to the three year Automobile/ Mechanical Engineering diploma is obviously misdirected, not based on correct facts and palpably perverse. Hence also of no avail to the petitioner.
The inevitable conclusion which follows from the above discussion is that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification of a three year diploma in Automobile/ Mechanical Engineering from a recognized University/ Board or another qualification recognized equivalent therewith by the Central or the State Government to be appointed as a Motor Vehicle Sub Inspector under the Rules of 1963. Consequently the petitioner was/ is not entitled to such appointment. The cancellation of the petitioner's selection to the said post under the quota reserved for Ex- servicemen vide order dated 21-10-2011 therefore cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary. The challenge thereto in this petition is hence without merit.
Petition Dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 11 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.