Gujarat High Court
Kirtikumar Dahyabhai Patel & vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited ... on 7 July, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/5836/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5836 of 2015
==========================================================
KIRTIKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR AJAY R MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 07/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs;
"(A) Declare and hold that the petitioners are eligible to recruitment on the post of Assistant Technician (Electrical) pursuant to advertisement No.03/2014 (R & P), Annexure-A to this petition and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Technician (Electrical), pursuant to the said advertisement No.03/2014 (R &P), along with other eligible candidates and;
(B) Quash and set aside the action of the respondent No.1 of rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for recruitment on the post of Assistant Technician (Electrical) pursuant to advertisement No.03/2014 (R&P), Annexure-A to this petition, and Page 1 of 8 C/SCA/5836/2015 ORDER (C ) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to conduct interview of the petitioners for appointment on the post in question, and/or (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to keep 3 posts of Assistant Technician (Electrical) vacant, and/or (E) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Assistant Technician (Electrical) pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-A to this petition.
(F) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. On 1st April, 2015, the following order was passed;
"1. Petitioners herein had, after completing 12th Standard examination, obtained diploma in electrical engineering on undergoing two years diploma course with Technical Examination Board, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar.
2. In response to advertisement issued by the respondent ONGC, they had cleared written examination and were called for interview on 29.3.2015. They were not permitted to appear in the interview on the ground that they had not completed three years diploma in electrical engineering.
3. It is the case of the petitioners, as submitted by learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioners that those students who joined diploma in electrical engineering after completing 10th Standard are required to undergo the three years course. However, on having cleared 12th Standard examination the course to be undertaken is of 2 years. This is a pattern being followed by the Technical Examination Board, Gujarat State, and therefore, denying the petitioners an opportunity of appearing in the interview only on the ground of their having completed two years course after 12th standard examination is an Page 2 of 8 C/SCA/5836/2015 ORDER act which requires interference.
Issue notice returnable on 6.4.2015.
Direct service today."
3. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, invited my attention to the advertisement issued by the ONGC No.3 of 2014 for recruitment to various posts on the establishment of the ONGC. One of the posts was Assistant Technician (Electrical). The essential qualifications for being considered for the said post as provided in the advertisement was three years Diploma in Electrical Engineering and should have certificate of competency as Electrical Supervisor. In the present case, both the petitioners, after clearing their standard 12 exam, studied in a college which provided two years of a Diploma Course in Electrical Engineering. However, Mr. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, tried to persuade me by submitting that when his clients completed the course of Diploma in Electrical Engineering, the said course was only of two years. According to him, the three years course started sometime in the year 2008.
4. According to Mr. Vyas, the respondents should have considered the qualifications of the petitioners for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Technician (Electrical).
5. This petition has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, the learned advocate appearing for the ONGC. He submitted that indisputably, the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed to the post of Assistant Technician (Electrical). Mr. Mehta relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Shri Ajay M. Kumar, Chief Page 3 of 8 C/SCA/5836/2015 ORDER Manager (HR), ONGC. I my quote the relevant paragraphs of the said reply as under:
"7. The petitioners have both applied for the post of Assistant Technician (Elec.) and the interviews for all eligible candidates who had applied for the said post have been completed on 6th April, 2015. I say and submit that there is no question of the petitioners being interviewed even otherwise. This is without prejudice to the respondent corporation's contention that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualifications for being considered. The petition therefore also deserves to be dismissed.
8.2 With reference to paragraph No.2, it is a matter of record that ONGC had issued an advertisement in News Paper in October, 2014 for 674 posts in different disciplines which also included 54 posts of Asstt. Technician (Electrical).
a) The essential qualification prescribed fro the post of A.T. (Electrical), A2 level post is as under:-
Post Post Essential qualification
Cod
e
3 Asstt. 3 years Diploma in Electrical
Tech. Engineering. Should have
(Electrica Certificate of Competency as
l) Electrical Supervisor.
b) Clause No.1.3 (appearing on page No.7) of the above referred Advertisement under the "sub Heading "IMPORTANT NOTE FOR ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION" is reproduced below:-
(I) Diploma should be recognized by AICTE and should minimum 3 years duration.
(II) Diploma should be in the prescribed discipline as mentioned in the essential qualification (no equivalency will be acceptable).
It is a fact that during the verification of documents both Page 4 of 8 C/SCA/5836/2015 ORDER the above petitioners were not having the prescribed three years Diploma in Electrical Engineering and therefore they were not allowed for the personal interview on 29.03.2015.
It is specifically denied that the respondent illegally, arbitrarily refused the petitioners permission to appear in the interview. As clarified above the petitioners were not permitted since they did not possess the requisite qualification.
The various assertions qua the examination taken by them and reference to technical board Gujarat State Gandhinagar are irrelevant. The respondents required three years diploma as per its rules and regulations contained in MRPR, 1980 as well as the advertisement. It is specifically denied that the respondent were required to consider various aspects in this paragraph.
8.3 With reference to paragraph No.3, it is a fact that ONGC had issued an advertisement in the local Newspaper in October, 2014. it is also fact that the advertisement included 54 posts meant for Assistant Technician (Electrical).
8.4 With reference to paragraph No.3.2, the above two petitioners at the time of applying online application have ticked in the relevant column as having 3 years Diploma in Electrical Engineering and therefore the system accepted the candidature of the petitioners,. They were issued the system generated Admit Card for appearing in the written test. Thereafter, based upon their performance in the written test they were issued Call Letters for Personal Interview from the above, it becomes clear that the acts of Petitioner amounted to misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. It is a matter of record that therefore the date of interview, the documents of the two Petitioners were not scrutinized/ verified at any point of time.
8.5 With reference to paragraph No.3.3 the contents thereof, are a matter of record. It is a fact that the petitioners were actually having 2 years Diploma in Electrical Engineering and this fact could only be noticed during the verification / scrutiny of the documents i.e., Certificates, Education qualification marksheets etc. As Page 5 of 8 C/SCA/5836/2015 ORDER both the above petitioners were not having the prescribed 3 years Diploma in Electrical Engineering they were not allowed for the personal interview on 29.03.2015. It is however, denied that any cause of action has arisen to the petitioners to approach this Hon'ble Court.
8.6 With reference to ground a) it is denied that the action of the respondent in rejecting candidature of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory as alleged or at all.
8.7 Allegation of ground b) are specifically denied. It is a matter of record as clarified above that the requirement specified was three years diploma and in the advertisement also it was prescribed that no equivalency will be acceptable. The petitioners contention with regard to they having completed 12th standard and thereafter two year diploma which is equivalent to three year diploma after 10th standard is of no consequence. It is a fact that candidates who have undergone 3 years diploma in Electrical Engineering, after doing SSC were allowed for the personal interview as they were having 3 years Diploma in Electrical Engineering in 6 semesters evaluation system i.e. the duration of the Diploma was 3 years as prescribed.
8.8 The respondents deny the contents of ground c). The respondents are in no manner concerned with the mode and manner in which the petitioners may have appeared.
8.9 With reference to ground d), there are six similar types of candidates who had undergone 2 years Diploma course in Electrical Engineering but they have failed in some subjects and reappeared in the examination and therefore the duration of the course went upto three years. However, it is clarified that these candidates were allowed for Personal Interview inadvertently and hence they cannot be made a ground by the petitioners to claim personal interview. It is further submitted that the above inadvertent error would be rectified and their candidature will be cancelled.
8.10 With reference to ground e) it is a fact that during the last recruitment exercise in 2012, although the Page 6 of 8 C/SCA/5836/2015 ORDER essential qualification for the Post of Assistant Technician (Electrical) was same, the petitioner no.1 was called for personal interview on 05.05.2013 inadvertently. However, merely because the respondent corporation had made a mistake in the earlier recruitment can by no stretch of imagination entitle the petitioners to any relief nor can they insist that a mistake made earlier is required to be repeated."
6. Mr. Vyas submitted that the averments made by the respondents in para-8.9 of the reply goes to show that some of the candidates who had completed two years of Diploma Course in Electrical Engineering and had failed in few subjects and reappeared in the examination were considered for the post of Assistant Technician (Electrical). Mr. Mehta clarified that no such persons have been appointed.
7. In my view, once it is found that the petitioners were not fulfilling the requisite criteria regarding qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement, they cannot seek any appointment on the premise that although they had done two years Diploma in Electrical Engineering, they should be considered at par with those persons who had done their three years Diploma in Electrical Engineering. None of the fundamental rights or any legal right of the petitioners could be said to have been infringed on account of the action on the part of the respondents in not appointing so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged.
Page 7 of 8 C/SCA/5836/2015 ORDER(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Vahid Page 8 of 8