Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Aruna Patel (Lodhi) vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2019
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
1
W. P. No.17536/2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.17536/2019
(Smt. Aruna Patel (Lodhi) vs. Union of India & others)
Jabalpur, Dated 27.11.2019
Shri Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the Union of India.
On 05.11.2019 time was granted to the respondents to file an
affidavit to the effect that all the posts which were filled by the candidates having certificate of National Council for Vocational Training. Responding to the order, the respondents have filed an affidavit today stating therein that as per SRO (i.e., SRO185 dated 01.11.1994) the National Apprenticeship Certificate/National Trade Certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training in the relevant was to be accepted as the qualification required for direct recruitment. It is further stated that a total of 27 candidates have been selected in the Examiner Engineering Trade out of which 13 candidates having National Apprenticeship Certificate/ National Trade Certificate Certificates issued by the National Council for Vocational Training have joined the service. Candidature of one of the candidates has been cancelled on account of not reporting and remaining 13 were denied appointment on account of not having essential qualification i.e., National Apprenticeship Certificate or National Trade Certificate issued by National Council for Vocational Training. 2 W. P. No.17536/2019
In the case at hand, for the appointment to the post of Group-C (Semi-Skilled), the requisite qualification as per SRO 185 i.e., Ordnance Factories Group C and Group D Industrial Posts Recruitment Rules, 1994, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution was "National Council of Trade for Vocational Training Certificate in relevant trade failing which Industrial Training Institute or equivalent Diploma Certificate holders. Since the petitioner was having Certificate of proficiency, issued by Board of Apprenticeship Training (Western Region) Mumbai, under Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and Diploma Certificate in Mechanical Engineer, which were not acknowledged as equivalent to National Council for Vocational Training her candidature was rejected on 30.12.2013 which was an order passed in furtherance to order dated 06.09.2013 in Original Application No.317/2012. The order speaks thus:
"The essential qualifications for recruitment in Ordnance Factories as Semi-Skilled tradesman as per SRO 185/1994 are National Apprenticeship Certificate and National Trade Certificate issued by National Council of Vocational Training.
It is clarified that a certificate of proficiency cannot be a substitute for a duly prescribed qualification for recruitment in the SRO, which in the instant case happens to be NAC/NTC issued by NCVT.
In compliance to CAT Jabalpur order dated 06.09.2013, the proficiency certificate/certificate submitted by Smt.Aruna Patel (Lodhi) [in OA-317/2012] and Amita Singh [in OA-408/2012] are examined by competent 3 W. P. No.17536/2019 authority. Smt.Aruna Patel had enclosed in her application form a Certificate of Proficiency issued by Board of Apprenticeship Training (Western Region) Mumbai for undergoing Apprenticeship training under the Apprentices Act, 1961 at Gun Carriage Factory from 21.01.2005 to 20.01.2006 in the Subject field of 'Mechanical Engineering', and Kumari Amita Singh [in OA-408/2012] had enclosed in her application form a Certificate issued by Ordnance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur certifying that she had successfully completed a course of Practical Training under the Practical Training Stipends Scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India in the Subject field of 'Mechanical Engineering' for a period of 01 year from 04.09.2008 to 03.09.2009 under Section 3-A of the Apprenticeship (Amendment) Act 1986.
After examined by competent authority i.e., Ordnance Factory-Board and clarified by competent authority i.e., OFB that a certificate of proficiency cannot be a substitute of NAC/NTC certificate issued by NCVT.
On perusal of application submitted by Smt. Aruna Patel and Kumari Amita Singh it is found that she has declared her technical qualification as Diploma in Mechanical Engg. and does not possess NAC/NTC certificate issued by NCVT.
Now therefore for the reasons stated herein before you cannot be appointed for the post of Exam Engg (Semi- Skilled)."
The order was affirmed on its challenge before the Tribunal in O.A. No.200/00051/2014 decided on 05.10.2018. The Tribunal held:
"12- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available herein.
13- Learned counsel for the respondents brought the orders dated 06.01.2014 of Principal Bench of this Tribunal 4 W. P. No.17536/2019 in the matters of Dr.Kamal Chouhan vs. Union of India and Ors. passed in O.A. No.1918/2012 to out notice wherein Para 11 reads as under:
"(11)- It is a well accepted fact that this Tribunal is not a substitute for expert of academic bodies constituted for specific purpose of deciding equivalence of degrees. The superior courts have repeatedly emphasized that the Tribunals/Courts should be content to adjudicate within their own realm and should be loath to venture into academic/inadequacy to particular requirements.
These matter are beset left to such bodies or people who have been specially designated for this purpose."
14- In the matters of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Lata Arun, 2002 (6) SCC 252, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under -
"(13)- From the ration of the decisions noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. it is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority."
15- In a recent judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No.200/392/2016, we have held that the Ordnance Factory Board Kolkata is the competent authority to decide whether the qualification is equivalent to the prescribed qualification or not as per Note 10 of SRO.
5W. P. No.17536/2019
16- Therefore, we are convinced that there is no ground for us to interfere in the decision taken by the respondent department. Accordingly, these Original Applications are dismissed. No costs."
Pertinent it is to note one Rekha Rapartiwar (Darji) also preferred Original Application No.200/01046/2016 which was dismissed on 05.10.2018, whereagainst she preferred the Writ Petition No.366/2019 which was dismissed on 09.01.2019. It was held:
"We have also carefully examined the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities rejecting the petitioner's representation by order dated 14.7.2016 pursuant to the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the review case.
From a perusal thereof, it is clear that the respondent authorities have infact not relied or rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the basis of the clarificatory order issued by the Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata on 21.10.2011 regarding equivalence of qualification but has also examined the equivalence of the qualification possessed by the petitioner in relation to the qualification notified in the advertisement.
From a perusal of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, it is apparent that the petitioner was required to possess a NCVT certificate in the trades of Fitter, Machinist, Welder, Electrician, Fitter Electronics, failing which a certificate by ITI or an equivalent Diploma/Certificate.
Apparently, the petitioner does not hold any certificate or diploma in a trade nor has the petitioner obtained any practical training in this regard. According to the documents filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is infact a holder of Diploma Certificate in Electronics Engineering from the Rajiv Gandhi Prodyogiki ishwavidyalaya obtained through correspondence course and a certificate from Akashwani, 6 W. P. No.17536/2019 Jabalpur regarding one year training in Medium Wave Broadcasting and the same have not been found equivalent to the qualification prescribed.
In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or perversity in not venturing into the question of equivalence by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Lata Arun (supra), moreso, as the expert body namely the Ordnance Factory Board has already examined the issue and given its opinion that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is not equivalent to that which has been notified in the advertisement.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The petition, filed by the petitioner, being meritless, is accordingly, dismissed."
Similar is the case as present one wherein the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification and the qualification she possesses is not an equivalent one.
In view whereof, the Tribunal was well justified in rejecting the claim.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) (B. K. SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Loretta
Digitally signed by LORETTA RAJ
Date: 2019.12.03 05:06:10 -08'00'