Allahabad High Court
Hari Ram Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 August, 2022
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3475 of 2022 Petitioner :- Hari Ram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Shatrughan Sonwal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Ramesh Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an advertisement dated 17.06.2020 was issued by respondent no. 3 for appointment of Technician Grade-II and as per advertisement, qualification for appointment was High School or equivalent with Science and Math alongwith two years diploma certificate issued by National Council of Vocational Training (in short "NCVT") / State Council of Vocational Training (in short "SCVT"). Petitioner being Ex-serviceman, has applied for the same having certificate issued by Indian Armed Forces (Army) Trade Proficiency Certificate For Ex-Servicemen dated 29.02.2020, which is equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT, but his candidature has been rejected on the ground that certificate, so issued, is neither equivalent to certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT nor as per requirement of advertisement. He next submitted that Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training vide letter dated 4/13.03.2013 has directed all the Directors of State Government/ UT Administration dealing with Craftsman Training Scheme to treat the certificate issued by respective departments of Army, Air Force and Navy equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/ NCTVT. He next submitted that under such facts and circumstances, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.
Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of newly impleaded respondent no. 4 has filed short counter affidavit, which is taken on record. He also relied upon the very same letter dated 4/13.03.2013 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training and submitted that this certificate is equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/ SCVT.
Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it is required on the part of petitioner to fulfill the qualification whatsoever is mentioned in the advertisement and undisputedly, the requirement is to have two years training certificate issued by NCVT/ SCVT in Trade of Electrician, Electrical and Electrical (power distribution under skill development). He next submitted that undisputedly, petitioner is not having the certificate issued by NCVT/ SCVT as desired in the advertisement. Similar controversy came up before this Court on so many occasions and Court has taken the constant view that requirement of advertisement has to be completed.
He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Munesh Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No. 52658 of 2012) dated 28.09.2012 in which Court has held that under such circumstances, Court cannot proceed to exercise its authority to accord any relief.
He next placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sanjay Batra Vs. State of U.P. Throu. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko and others (Service Single No. 460 of 2014) dated 10.03.2015 and submitted that point no. 2 decided in the said judgment is the controversy of this petition. In that case too, three years diploma certificate was required whereas petitioner was having certificate issued by Indian Armed Forces (Army) and Court has again taken the very same view that if the petitioner is not holding any diploma of three years issued by authority mentioned in the advertisement, no relief can be granted.
Next, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Shukla Vs. Electricity Service Commission, Lucknow Thru. Chairman and others (Special Appeal Defective No. 392 of 2017) dated 15.09.2017 in which issue was the same. In that case, petitioner is having certificate issued by the Indian Air Force on account of his serving with the Air Force from 20th September, 1991 to 20th September, 2011, but his candidature was not considered as it was not issued by authority mentioned in the advertisement. Petitioner has challenged the same by filing writ petition before this Court, which was rejected. Against that, he has preferred Special Appeal. Division Bench has affirmed the judgment of Single Bench by dismissing the appeal of the appellant. In the present case too, certificate of the very same nature as it was also issued to the petitioner on the basis of his proficiency acquired during his 6 years, 2 months and 27 days of service.
Lastly, he placed reliance upon another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sudhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (Special Appeal Defective No. 147 of 2021) dated 19.02.2021, which also shows that condition so mentioned in the advertisement has to be complied. In that case, appellant was having Diploma in Electrical Engineering issued by Indian Air Force. Court after considering the arguments so advanced, came to the conclusion that equivalence to any other course can be given by the council namely AICTE or the State Government for their service and not by any other body having no authority of it for general application. He next submitted that in present case, certificate so required is from NCVT/ SCVT of two years training course, but it has never declared by NCVT/ SCVT that certificate issued by the Indian Armed Forces (Army) is equivalent to certificate issued by the Institution, therefore, same cannot be treated equivalent and the petition may be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only issue before this Court is as to whether certificate so submitted by the petitioner is fulfilling the terms of the advertisement or not, therefore, advertisement dated 17.06.2020 is being quoted herein below;
"
In paragraph 2 of the advertisement under Heading "Essential Educational Qualification", it is clearly mentioned that petitioner must have passed High School or equivalent examination with Science and Math subjects alongwith two years training diploma as regular student from NCVT/ SCVT. In the present case, there is no dispute on the point that petitioner was never a regular student of NCVT/ SCVT and obtained certificate as required by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. This Court in the matter of Munesh Kumar (supra) has dealt with very same issue in which petitioners have completed the training in Electric in service and possess the certificate Proficiency Certificate and in N.A.C. Electrical which is equivalent to qualification as advertised. Lastly, Court has opined that once certificate issued in favour of petitioner is not accepted by the respondents, Court cannot proceed to exercise its authority of judicial review to accord any relief. In present case too, petitioner was issued Trade Proficiency Certificate For Ex-Servicemen issued by Indian Armed Forces (Army) based upon proficiency acquired during 16 years 2 months 27 days of service in the Army. Relevant paragraph of Munesh Kumar (supra) is being quoted below;
"This Court has occasion to consider the advertisement in question at page 17 of the paper book and as per the advertisement in question candidate desirous of being appointed has to have to his credit High School or equivalent examination certificate with Science and Math from U.P. High School Board or from any other equivalent Board with two years certificate in Electrician trade obtained from All India/State Vocational certificate. Accepted position is that petitioners are not at all having the aforementioned certificate and to the contrary petitioners are contending that they have completed the training in Electric in service and possess the certificate Proficiency Certificate and in N.A.C. Electrician which is equivalent to qualification as advertised. The advertisement in question at no point of time permits to furnish any equivalent certificate to be furnished as has been specifically provided for i.e. certificates issues in electrical trade obtained from All India and State vocational certificate. Once such is the factual situation that certificates issued in favour of the petitioner are not accepted to be certificate as is required in the advertisement then this Court cannot proceed to exercise its authority of judicial review to accord any relief, as equivalence is to be determined by the authorities, and that too when there is any room for the said purpose."
Again in the matter of Sanjay Batra (supra) issue was same and Court has framed point no. 2, whether Diploma held by the petitioner satisfies the requirement of advertisement. Lastly, Court has taken the very same view that petitioner is not holding a requisite Diploma as required under the advertisement and Diploma, which he is having is not recognized by the State of U.P. to be equivalent to the three years Diploma awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Relevant paragraphs are quoted below;
"Point-2:- Whether the Diploma held by the petitioner satisfies the requirement of advertisement?
The advertisement lays down the essential qualification for the candidates applying to the aforesaid post as under:-
(i) Three years Diploma examination in Electrical Engineering/ Electronics Engineering/ Telecommunication Engineering/ Civil Engineering awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh or a Diploma, equivalent thereto, recognized by the State Government, or
(ii) Three years All India Diploma Examination in Electrical Engineering/ Electronics Engineering/ Telecommunication Engineering/ Civil Engineering conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), or
(iii) Diploma Examination in Electrical Engineering/ Electronics Engineering/ Telecommunication Engineering/ Civil Engineering conducted by any of the Universities in India incorporated by an Act of the Central/ State legislature.
It may be noted that the petitioner is holding a Diploma in Electronics Radio Communication Engineering which he did from Communication Training Institute (C.T.I.) Banglore. The said Diploma certificate has been issued to him by the Indian Air Force. The duration of the said Diploma course as stated in the certificate is two years i.e.1994-96.
In view of the aforesaid certificate it is clear that petitioner is not holding any Diploma of three years which has been issued either by the Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, or All India Council for Technical Education or any Central or State University. Therefore, the petitioner is not holding a Diploma as envisaged in the advertisement as the minimum qualification for eligibility.
In the above circumstances, the only thing which is required to be seen is whether the Diploma which the petitioner is holding is equivalent to the Three Years Diploma awarded by the Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad,Uttar Pradesh.
In this connection, it is important to note that the Diploma which the petitioner is holding is of only two years duration and is not of three years. Secondly, there is nothing on record to establish that it has been recognized by the State of U.P. or any other authority equivalent to Three years Diploma examination in Electrical Engineering/ Electronics Engineering/ Telecommunication Engineering/ Civil Engineering awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh rather annexure-3 to the counter affidavit which is letter dated 14.10.2011 addressed by the Secretary Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow to the Secretary U.P. Power Corporation on the query made with regard to the similar certificates states that course in respect whereof certificates have been issued are not of three years, the same cannot be regarded as equivalent to the Three year Diploma certificate prescribed as the essential qualification under the advertisement.
The recognition to any Diploma as equivalent to Three Years Diploma in the desired subject awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad has to be by the State of U.P. There is no material to show that the State of U.P. has recognized the Diploma held by the petitioner as equivalent to the Three Years Diploma in the concern subject of the Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the letter of the Secretary to the Government of India dated 31.12.1999 addressed to the Joint Director Directorate Ex-Service Welfare, Chennai which states that the Government of India have recognized the certificate in the Trade of Radio Fitter which is made equivalent to Diploma in Radio/ Electronics and Communication Engineering for the purposes of employment and as such a requesting to recognize it as equivalent to Diploma in Electronics/ Radio Communication Engineering. The said letter do recognize the Diploma certificate in Radio Fitter as equivalent to Diploma in Radio/ Electronics and Communication Engineering but this recognition is only by the Government of India and not by the Government of U.P. The requirement of equivalency has to be by the State Government.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is neither an Ex-Serviceman nor is holding a requisite Diploma as required under the advertisement and that the Diploma which he is holding is not recognized by the State of U.P. to be equivalent to the Three Years Diploma awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Accordingly, petitioner is neither entitle to the benefit of an ex-serviceman nor is qualified for the post in question as advertised. Thus, the respondents have rightly declined to accept him for interview.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs."
This issue was also came before Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dinesh Kumar Shukla (supra) and Division Bench repeated the same view. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below;
"Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant on the finding that he did not possess the requisite diploma qualification as was mentioned in the advertisement. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant did possess the diploma in Electrical Engineering relying upon a certificate issued by the Indian Air force on account of his serving with the Air force from 20th September, 1991 to 20th September, 2011 and having undergone the prescribed training in the Trade of MS FIT (E). He further submits that in the certificate it is mentioned that if the candidate acquires 10 years technical experience in appropriate field alongwith the diploma it would become equivalent to the degree in engineering and that he would be eligible for applying to gazetted posts under Central or State Government. He submits that appellant worked for 20 years with the Indian Air force alongwith his technical training as such he was fully eligible for applying to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) with the U.P. Power Corporation. This aspect has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge and it did not find favour. The same was rejected on two grounds that the training period of Diploma was very short and not of 3 years as required and secondly the same was not recognised by the Competent Authority. We do not find any fault with the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge by rejecting the said argument and dismissing the writ petition.
Once again this Court has considered the very same issue in the matter of Sudhir Singh (supra) and reiterated its earlier view. Relevant paragraphs are quoted below;
"We otherwise find that the qualification prescribed under the rules and mentioned in para 5 of the advertisement was required to be possessed by the candidates. Equivalence to any other course can be given by the council namely AICTE or the State Government for their service and not by any other body having no authority of it for general application. The petitioner-appellant is not in possession of the qualification conferred either by an university incorporated by the Central or State Legislature or three years diploma course conducted by AICTE or for that State of U.P. There is nothing on record to show that the State of U.P. has given equivalence to the course/certificate obtained by the petitioner-appellant.
In absence of it, we do not find any error in the judgment to hold the petitioner-appellant to be ineligible. It otherwise goes without saying that the recognition of the institution and the course remains under the domain of AICTE and not with anyone else. The equivalence of the course is also to be given by AICTE being the council competent to issue notification for technical education. It is pursuant to the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. If the recognition or equivalence of a technical course is to be given, it has to be as per the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and not in violation of it."
Now coming to the present case. In this case also, advertisement is very clear which shows that certificate has to be issued by NCVT/ SCVT for a regular student who has attended two years training course, which is undisputedly lacking and certificate of petitioner is issued by Indian Armed Forces (Army) based upon 16 years experience of service. This issue have also been considered in the judgments cited before this Court and it is consistently held that Court cannot proceed to exercise its authority of judicial review to compel the respondents to accept the equivalence as claimed by the petitioner based upon the notification issued by the Central Government coupled with the fact that essential requirement is of two years regular training course for obtaining Diploma of NCVT/ SCVT. Therefore, in light of discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Courts, no interference is required.
Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dt.04.08.2022 Arvind/-