Allahabad High Court
Arvind Kumar vs Registrar General High Court Of ... on 13 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1487, (2020) 1 ALL WC 231
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD In Chamber "A.F.R." Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16106 of 2017 Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Respondent :- Registrar General High Court Of Judicature At Alld. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the District Judge Chandauli/respondent No.2 (Annexure No.16 to the writ petition) with a further prayer to direct the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in service along with the arrears of salary and other consequential benefits.
3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that an advertisement was issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad/respondent No.1 inviting applications from eligible candidates in order to fill up Group C Cadre Posts by direct recruitment in District Courts situated in State of U.P. The advertisement in question also includes the post of Junior Assistant and Paid Apprentice in Grade Pay of Rs.5200-20200/-. The essential qualification for appointment on the post of Junior Assistant was intermediate with special knowledge of Urdu and Hindi along with Computer Concept Course (hereinafter referred to as "CCC") issued by DOEACC Society and 25/30 words per minute for Hindi/English Type writing on Computer, Arithmetic, Menstruation, Elementary Land Surveying and Mapping.
4. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant under Scheduled Caste Category. Admit Card was issued and the written examination was held on 18.10.2014. The petitioner duly qualified the same and thereafter the petitioner was subjected to computer type test. In the result computer type test, the petitioner was found duly selected. Thereafter, the petitioner was participated in Hindi and English Typing Test on 24.05.2015. The final result was published in which the petitioner was finally selected for appointment on the post of Junior Assistant and he was appointed on the aforesaid post in District Chandauli by respondent No.2 vide letter of appointment dated 01.10.2015. Thereafter the petitioner joined his duties and started working.
5. The Educational qualification of the petitioner are intermediate, B.A., M.A. in Hindi. Apart from the same, the petitioner also possessed professional qualification in Computer Education i.e. Diploma in Computer Application from Janta Computer Education Centre and also a Diploma in Computer Application from Community Development through Polytechnic Chandauli, Government of India Project, Chandauli Polytechnic Chandauli. It is contended in paragraph 16 of the writ petition that Director of Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI) has invited the newly appointed Class III District Court Employees for a computer Training Programme for 17.10.2016 and 18.10.2016 at JARI Lucknow vide order dated 21.09.2016. The petitioner duly participated in the aforesaid training programme and completed it successfully. A certificate in this regard was issued to the petitioner, copy of which is appended as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. A circular was issued by the respondent No.1 on 06.01.2018 by which certain clarifications were issued with regard to the requirement of Computer qualification mentioned in the advertisement, i.e., possession of CCC certificate awarded by the DOEACC Society. Subsequently another circular dated 16.1.2016 was issued whereby information was sought for regarding details of computer qualification possessed by the selected/appointed candidates from each District Judgeship. A resolution was issued by the respondent No.1 addressed to all the District Judges of U.P. with regard to the requisite qualification, i.e., CCC Certificate.
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 31.8.2016 to the petitioner demanding CCC certificate issued by DOECC Society (NIETLIT) on 02.09.2016.The petitioner duly submitted his reply stated therein that he possessed computer qualification equivalent to CCC certificate. Another notice was issued by the respondent No.2 on 09.09.2016 stating that the CCC certificate issued by DOEACC (NIETLIT) is mandatory for post of Junior Assistant as has been stipulated in the resolution dated 26.08.2016. The petitioner again submitted its reply on 24.09.2016 stating therein that he possessed a diploma from Polytechnic, Chandauli which is within the purview of Government of India Project and the same is equivalent to CCC Certificate issued by DOEACC Society (NIETLIT). The petitioner was also direct to present in the office of respondent No.2 on 3.10.2016 along with certificate of computer qualification. It is contended that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, order dated 7.1.2017 was passed by the respondent No.2 terminating his services pursuant to the resolution dated 26.08.2016. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 7.1.2017.
7. It is contended by Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned dated 7.1.2017 is wholly unreasoned order and fails to accord any consideration to the reply submitted by the petitioner in response of show cause notices issued by the respondent No.2. It is further argued that insofar as the CCC certificate issued by the DOEACC Society (NIETLIT) is concerned, the same is 80 hours basic course of study and in comparison thereto, the course content of the petitioner pertaining to the computer has been far wider. It is further argued that the order impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been given to the petitioner at any point of time before the impugned order was passed. It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and against the provisions of U.P. District Court Service Rules, 2013. It is further argued that the computer qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to CCC Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society (NIETLIT). It is further argued that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is much higher than the CCC certificate issued by the DOEACC Society (NIETLIT). The petitioner cannot be non-suited on the ground that he does not have a particular certificate which is very basic qualification in the knowledge of computer operation.
8. Sri Adarsh Bhushan learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of 2010 (15) SCC 596 (Jyoti K.K. and Others Vs.Kerala Public Service Commission and others). The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case was pleased to hold that higher qualification must clearly indicate or presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the rules to the effect that such of those higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post.
9. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide Advertisement No.01/Sub. Court/Category "C"/Clerical Cadre/2004 advertised the Uttar Pradesh Civil Court Staff Centralized Recruitment Scheme, 2014 calling for the post of Junior Assistant and Paid Apprentice for various vacancies in different Judgeships in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The essential qualifications prescribed in the said advertisement was as follows:-
"2. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
The Applicant must possess minimum essential qualification for all the posts on the last date of submission of the on-line application form for the following posts:-
Sl.
Category Posts ("C" Cadre Posts) Essential Qualification Experience 1 Junior Assistant (Amin Grade-II Category "C"/ Copyist (Civil & Police Case Diaries/Assistt. Account Clerk/ Additional Clerk/ Court Clerk/ Admin Clerk/ Writer & Runner/Typist, etc Clerk-cum-Typist Category "C") Intermediate with Special Knowledge of Urdu and Hindi along with a CCC certificate issued by DOEACC Society and 25/30 words per minute for Hindi/ English Typewriting on Computer, Arithmetic, mensuration, elementary land surveying and mapping, Order XXVIof Act No. V of 1908 and Rules (Civil) relating to the work and duties of the Junior Assistant.
Note: For the post of Amin Grade-II, only those candidates will be considered who have passed their Intermediate examinations with Mathematics as one of the subject.
N.A. 2 Paid Apprentices Intermediate with CCC certificate issued by DOEACC Society and 25/30 words per minute for Hindi/ English Typewriting on Computer.
N.A.
10. Thus, for both the posts Junior Assistant and Paid Apprentice, the minimum qualification of computer course to be possessed by the applicant was a ''CCC' Certificate issued by the DOEACC Society (apart from other qualifications) on the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 30/09/2014. It is further contended that the services of the paid apprentice of the Subordinate Court are governed by the U.P. District Court Service Rules, 2013; Schedule-B of the said Rules provides the essential qualifications for the post in the Cadre. A perusal of the said schedule would show that the minimum essential qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant, amongst other, includes ''CCC' Certificate issued by DEOACC Society, as such it is submitted that the statutory provision which govern the services of the employees of the subordinate court, unequivocally provided that the candidate should have a ''CCC' Certificate issued by DOEACC Society, as a minimum essential qualification.
11. It is further contended that the last date of filling up the online application form was 30.09.2014 and as per the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, the applicant must possesses the minimum essential qualification on the last date of submission of the online application form. It is further contended that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant and was duly selected, though he did not possess computer qualification prescribed under the advertisement, as he did not have ''CCC' certificate issued by the DOEACC Society or any higher qualification on the last date of filling of application form. The petitioner made a false declaration in the application form that the petitioner had CCC Certificate qualification. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a Division Bench judgement dated 30.11.2016 passed in Special Appeal No.751 of 2016 (Ajay Seth Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) which is annexure 3 to the writ petition.
12. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts as stated in the counter affidavit were denied. Shri Bhushan learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 06.05.2019 in Special Appeal (Defective) No.679 of 2017 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). He further relied upon another Division Bench Judgement of this Court dated 16.05.2019 in Special Appeal No.1265 of 2018 (District Judge Azamgarh and another Vs. Sandeep Kumar Chauharn and another).
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Since affidavits have already been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard finally and disposed of at the admission stage itself.
14. From perusal of the facts as narrated above, it is clear that on the last date of submission of online form, the petitioner does not have certificate of CCC issued by DOEACC Society. It is also clear that two show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2, i.e., notices dated 31.08.2016 and 09.09.2016. Replies of the aforesaid show-cause notices were duly given by the petitioner vide reply dated 29.09.2016 and 24.09.2016. In both the replies, it is clearly mentioned by the petitioner that he possess a Diploma from Polytechnic Chandauli which is within the purview of Government of India Project and is equivalent to Computer Concept Course (CCC) Certificate issued by DOEACC Society (NIETLIT) but by passing the impugned order, the reply submitted by the petitioner was not at all taken into consideration by the respondent No.2From perusal of the impugned order dated 7.1.2017, it is clear that the order was passed by the respondent No.2 without application of mind and without considering the fact that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the Computer Concept Course (CCC) Certificate.
15. Apart from the same, Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) has already been held that the Computer Concept Course (CCC) is designed to fulfill the beginner level computer literacy and that can be undertaken by a person at his own also. It was further held that only requirement is that he must get the same verified by NIELIT (formerly known as "DOEACC Society"). The course in question is not expertise in computer application but is the most preliminary knowledge for computer operation. The certificate of CCC is available even for the persons who are having no formal education.
16. After taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the Division Bench was pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by Sanjay Kumar as well as the order passed by the District Judge Unnao cancelling the appointment of the applicant-petitioner. The petitioner was directed to reinstate in the District Judgeship of Unnao with all consequential benefits except actual the actual payment of salary for the period he remained out of employment. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below:-
"In appeal, we have looked into the entire issue including the nature of certificate of CCC. As per the details available on the official websidte of the NIELIT, the deails of the Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) is as follows:-
"Introduction: This course is designed to aim at imparting a basic level IT LIteracy programme for the common man. This programme has essentially been conceived with an idea of giving an opportunity to the common man to attain computer literacy thereby contributing to increased and speedy PC penetration in different walks of life. After completing the course the incumbent should be able to use the computer for basis purposes of preparing his personnel/business letters, viewing information on internet (the web), receiving and sending mails, preparing his business presentations, preparing small databases etc. This helps the small business communities, housewives, etc. to maintain their small accounts using the computers and enjoy in the world of Information Technology. This course is, therefore, designed to be more practical oriented.
Eligibility: The candidates can appear in the NIELIT CCC Examination through following three modes and the eligibility criteria for each mode are indicated against each:
2.1 Candidates sponsored by NIELIT approved Institutes permitted to conduct CCC Course - irrespective of any educational qualifications;
2.2 Candidates sponsored by Government recognized Schools/Colleges having obtained an Unique Identity number from NIELIT for conducting CCC - irrespective of any educational qualifications, and 2.3 Direct Applicants (without essentially undergoing the Accredited Course or without being sponsored by a Govt. recognized School/College) - irrespective of any educational qualification;
Duration: The total duration of the course is 80 hours, consisting of (I) Theory 25 hours
(ii) Tutorials 5 hours
(iii) Practicals 50 hours The course could ideally be a two weeks intensive course."
The introduction quoted above indicates that the Course on Computer Concepts (CCC) is designed to fulfill the beginner level computer literacy and that can be undertaken by a person at his own also. The only requirement is that he must get the same verified by NIELIT (formerly known as "DOEACC Society"). The course is not expertise in computer application but is the most preliminary knowledge for computer operation. The certificate of CCC is available even for the persons who are having no formal education. As a matter of fact, it is the first step for computer literacy. The only purpose to include certificate of "CCC" in the eligibility is that the aspirant must be aware with computer and he should a computer literate. The appellant-petitioner who is a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application is too ahead to the knowledge extended through CCC. The advance knowledge available to the appellant-petitioner very well satisfies the purpose and need to have certificate of CCC. Learned single Bench failed to appreciate that the purpose of having a CCC certificate stands satisfied on having the higher qualification of Post Graduation in Computer Application.
In view of whatever stated above, we are of considered opinion that learned single Bench erred while arriving at the conclusion that the order passed by District Judge, Unnao dated 19th September, 2016 does not suffer from any error.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 5th January, 2017 is set aside. The Writ Petition No.60818 of 2016 is allowed. The order dated 19th September, 2016 passed by the District Judge, Unnao cancelling the appointment of the appellant-petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is declared entitled to be reinstated as Stenographer Grade III in district judgeship Unnao with all consequential benefits except the actual payment of salary for the period he remained out of employment in pursuance to the order dated 19th September, 2015."
17. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of District Judge Azamgarh and another (supra) . The petitioner is possessing diploma in Computer Application from Janta Computer Education Centre as well as diploma in Computer Application from Polytechnic, Chandauli. The diploma obtained from Polytechnic Chandauli is under Government of India. The duration of diploma obtained from Polytechnic Chandauli is of more than 80 hours whereas the essential qualification of having CCC certificate issued by DOEACC Society (NIETNIT) is 80 hours basic course of study. The petitioner in reply to the show cause notice has given full detail regarding his essential qualification. Since the petitioner is having a diploma which is higher qualification than CCC certificate, as such, the order dated 7.1.2017 terminating his services is not sustainable.
18. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid two judgements, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed. The order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the District Judge Chandauli (Annexure 16 to the writ petition) is set aside. The petitioner is declared entitle to reinstate in the District Judgeship of Chandauli with all consequential benefits except the actual payment of salary for the period he remained out of employment pursuant to order dated 01.07.2017.
19. With the aforesaid observations,the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 13.09.2019 saqlain