Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Rahul Dev vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 23 January, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2413/2012
Reserved on : 21.01.2013.
Pronounced on : 23.01.2013.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Sh. Rahul Dev,
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o B-133, Ashok Nagar,
Neear Shukra Bazar Chowk,
Gali 10 Foot, Delhi-93. .. Applicant
(through Sh. Raman Duggal, Advocate)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-2.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board through
Secretary,
FC-18, Institutional Area,
Karkardooma, Delhi-92.
3. Directorate of Training & Technical Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura,
Delhi-88. .. Respondents
(through Sh. N.K. Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicant has sought the following relief:-
(a) To set aside the impugned order/communication dated 22.03.2012 (Annexure A1) passed by Respondent No.3.
To hold and declare that the applicant who has cleared Part II examination for the Post Code 044/07 in UR category for the post of Instructor (Maths) is eligible for the said Post and as such is entitled for the appointment to the said post.
To hold and declare that the applicant has a right to be considered for appointment for Post Cod 044/07 in UR category for the post of Instructor (Maths) is eligible for the said Post.
To direct the respondent to issue Letter of appointment to the applicant for the post of Instructor (Maths) (Post code 044/07) in the UR category).
To pass any further order(s) which this Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cas.
Costs.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.08.2007 an Advertisement was issued in Delhi Newspaper by the respondents regarding 14 posts in the unreserved category of Instructor (Maths). The essential qualification and experience advertised were as follows:-
1. Matriculation or equivalent from recognized University/ Board.
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from recognized Institution.
One year practical experience in an Engineering Workshop of Repute OR one year training at the Central Training Institute. The applicant applied for the same post in terms of the Advertisement. Exams were conducted on 14.02.2010. The applicant was asked to appear before Respondent No.3 i.e. Directorate of Training & Technical education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi with requisite documents. Separately, the verification of character and antecedents of the applicant were also carried out and medical examination was conducted. However, vide their impugned letter No. F.21(12)/96/Tg.Admn./332 dated 22.03.2012 respondent No.3 returned the dossier of the applicant to respondent No.2 holding him ineligible for appointment to the post of Instructor (Maths) on the grounds that the practical experience of the applicant for the said post was less than the required experience i.e. one year after acquiring the essential qualification. Aggrieved by this action of the respondents, the applicant served a legal notice to the respondents and when no reply was received, he has filed the present Original Application.
3. In their reply the respondents have not denied that the applicant had been short listed for the said post on the basis of the examination conducted by respondent No.2. They have contended that the applicant did not possess the one year practical experience in an engineering workshop. Their argument was that the certificate submitted by the applicant shows that experience was acquired prior to acquiring the requisite educational qualification and was, therefore, not acceptable.
5. We have heard both parties and perused the material placed on record.
6. The certificate of practical experience submitted by the applicant has been issued by one Sh. Shrikant Pandey, Head-HRD of Uttar Pradesh Steels on 22.08.2007, which reads as under:-
It is certified that Mr. Rahul Dev, S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar has been working in Uttar Pradesh Steels as a diploma engineers trainee since July 10,2006. His training period was one year. But due to some personal reasons his training period is being extended to another six months. His total stipend amount is Rs.5000/- per month. He is working on ad hoc basis. From this certificate it appears that the applicant started his training in July 2006 and would have completed one year on 9th July, 2007. A perusal of the certificate of educational qualification submitted by the applicant reveals that the same was issued by Arya Bhat Polytechnic, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi on 14.08.2007 certifying that the applicant has completed the three years Diploma Examination in Mechanical engineering in January 2007. Thus, it is clear that there is an over lap between the period of practical training and period of acquiring educational qualification, leading to the conclusion that the practical experience was not acquired after acquiring the educational qualification.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the advertised Recruitment Rules for the post in question no where stipulated that the practical experience is to be acquired after acquiring the requisite educational qualification. In support of his contention he has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, (2000)1 SCC 128. Paras-19,20 and 24 of the same reads as under:-
19.We may point out that in the present case,the relevant provisions applicable and the notification dated 30.6.89 inviting applications refer to essential qualification as (i) Degree and (ii) 2 years' 'professional' experience. As stated earlier, experience upto 2 years is the minimum and those above 2 years, get = mark for each year's experience ranging between 3 to 12 years, the maximum marks being 5 for experience.
20. We may at the outset state that the provision regarding experience speaks only of "professional experience" for two years and does not, in any manner, connect it with the degree qualification. In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra (1995 Supp.(3) SCC 332) where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant Recruitment Rules,namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991, this Court pointed out that the rule 3(e) which required one year experience in registered Automobile Workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification.
24. Therefore, on the language of the notification dated 30-6-1989, we are of the view that the 2 years professional experience need not entirely be experience gained after obtaining the degree.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the practical experience must be acquired after the requisite educational qualification. In support of their contention they have cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Airlines Ltd. And Others Vs. S. Gopalakrishnan, (2001)2 SCC 362. Paras-4 and 5 of the said judgment read as under:-
4. The respondent has obtained the ITI certificate in June 1994 and he had about five years of experience after obtaining the certificate and diploma in Mechanical Engineering was obtained in April 1996. In any event, it is clear that the experience obtained by him falls short of the requisite qualification. This Court N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 584; Gurdial Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab, 1995 (3) 332 and Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., 2000(1) SCC128, has explained the necessity to obtain experience after obtaining the requisite qualification.
5. When in addition to qualification, experience is prescribed, it would only mean acquiring experience after obtaining the necessary qualification and not before obtaining such qualification. In the case of the respondent, he obtained the ITI certificate in the year 1994 and, therefore, did not possess five years of experience as required under the relevant rule. If his qualification as a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering is taken note of, he has not completed three years of experience as he got the same in April, 1996 and on relevant date he did not possess such qualification. Indeed in prescribing qualification and experience, it is also made clear in the general information instruction at Item No.6 that experience will be computed after the date of acquiring the necessary qualifications. Therefore, when this requirement was made very clear that he should have experience only after acquiring the qualification, the view taken by the High Court to the contrary either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench does not stand to reason. 8.1 On this, learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the above cited case it was provided in the Recruitment Rules that the experience required will be computed from the date of acquiring necessary qualification whereas this was not the situation in the applicants case. He argued that the Recruitment Rules are in the nature of subordinate legislation and the authorities do not have the power to add anything to the same.
9. In our opinion, the applicant had acquired the necessary experience and educational qualification before the last date of application for the said post. The Recruitment Rules quoted above for the said post do not specify that the experience needs to be acquired after acquiring the educational qualification. While it is admitted that there was some overlap between acquiring the diploma and acquiring practical experience yet in our opinion in terms of the rules this should not come in the way of applicants candidature. It is not open to the authorities to add their own meaning to the rules. As long as the applicant had the requisite educational qualification and experience at the time of applying for the post, he should be declared eligible for the said post.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the present case, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the applicant, if he is otherwise eligible for the post, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vinita/