Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramdeen vs Managing Director (2023:Rj-Jd:37221) on 2 November, 2023
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
[2023:RJ-JD:37221]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3744/2023
Ramdeen S/o Shri Baksha Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Shri
Ram Colony, Saran Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Managing Director, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Chief Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,
Department Of Personnel, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Secretary (Admn), Department Of Personnel, Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Personnel Officer, Department Of Personnel Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : M.L. Deora.
For Respondent(s) : Aniket Tater.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 02/11/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, an Ex- servicemen, aggrieved of the action of the respondent in holding the petitioner ineligible for the post of Technical Helper-III.
2. It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that pursuant to the recruitment notification (Annex. 2) dated 04.02.2022 for the post of Technical Helper-III, wherein, as many as 370 posts by way of horizontal reservation were reserved for Ex-servicemen for non- TSP area, the petitioner applied vide its application form(Annex.5) inter-alia indicating his qualification based on certificate/diploma of Indian Army in the discipline Electrician which he passed in the year 2007.
3. The petitioner after appearing in the online examination, obtained 62.45701 marks after normalization and the cut-off for (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:22:05 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:37221] (2 of 6) [CW-3744/2023] his category being 37.58231, he was called for document verification.
4. In the list of candidates selected vide Annex.8, the last candidate in petitioner's category was indicated to have obtained 40.56727 marks and though the petitioner had obtained higher marks, he was not selected by the respondents.
5. The petitioner made representation to the respondents, however, when the same was not responded, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the respondents in holding the petitioner ineligible for the post of Technical Helper-III is ex-facie incorrect.
7. Submissions have been made that the petitioner is in possession of qualification equivalent to ITI (NCVT/SCVT) and in the note appended to the qualifications in the advertisement, it has been specifically indicated that certificate / diploma of Indian Army / Navy / Air Force is considered equivalent to ITI (NCVT/SCVT) and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard is not justified.
8. A response to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents inter-alia indicating that the petitioner does not possess the essential technical qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. It has been elaborated that the candidate is required to have equivalent qualification in the trade of Electrician / Linemen / SBA / Wireman / Power Electrician. However, the Trade Proficiency Certificate produced by the petitioner does not pertain to any of the said trade and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:22:05 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:37221] (3 of 6) [CW-3744/2023]
9. Further, submissions have been made that the qualification of the petitioner was forwarded to the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag for indicating as to whether the same was equivalent, wherein, vide Annex. R/1 it has been indicated that the petitioner was not eligible and, therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature is justified.
10. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner seeking to question the authority of the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag in indicating the equivalence and that there are overwriting / erasion in the said report, which makes it doubtful.
11. On the said rejoinder a counter-affidavit has been filed along with the communication from the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag reiterating that the petitioner is not eligible.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions that as the petitioner is in possession of the requisite qualification, which is clear from the documents (Annex. 3) as well as the certificate (Annex. 3 filed along with the rejoinder), the action of the respondents is not justified.
13. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has the Trade Proficiency Certificate in Technician Telecommunication (Foreman) and the certificate indicates that the petitioner has completed diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Class I Course and, therefore, in terms of the qualification required as per the advertisement, the petitioner is eligible.
14. It was sought to be emphasized that the only requirement is to have ITI / (NCVT/SCVT) / NAC or equivalent qualification and the same has no relation to the trade in which the said (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:22:05 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:37221] (4 of 6) [CW-3744/2023] qualification has been obtained and, therefore, the plea raised by the respondents is baseless.
15. Further submissions have been made that the report submitted by the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag clearly indicates the overwriting, wherein, against the name of the petitioner, he was earlier indicated as eligible which has been changed to not-eligible and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the said equivalence as the power to determine the equivalence only lies with technical persons.
16. It was prayed that the action of the respondents in this regard be set aside and petitioner, as he has obtained marks higher than the last selected candidate, he be directed to be accorded appointment.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the educational qualification indicated in the advertisement and the diploma of the petitioner made submissions that the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite educational qualification and, therefore, rejection of his candidature is justified.
18. Further submissions have been made that though the petitioner was not qualified on face of it, however, for the purpose of taking the requisite opinion from the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, the matter was forwarded wherein also the petitioner was found as not-eligible and when in the present petition objections were raised by the petitioner again a communication was sent to the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, which has reiterated the ineligibility of the petitioner and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:22:05 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:37221] (5 of 6) [CW-3744/2023]
19. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on the record.
20. The educational qualification as indicated in the advertisement in so far as relevant reads as under:
"3. Educational Qualification:-
Candidate must possess the qualification of Secondary from RBSE/CBSE or any equivalent Board alongwith ITI (NCVT/SCVT)/NAC or equivalent qualification in the trade of Electrician/Lineman/SBA/Wireman/Power Electrician.
Note:
2. Certificate/Diploma of Indian Army/Navy/Air Force considered equivalent to ITI(NCVT/SCVT)/NAC will only be considered equivalent qualification. Diploma in Engineering or any higher qualification will not be considered equivalent to ITI(NCVT/SCVT)/NAC.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
21. The certificate produced by the petitioner as Annex. 3 with writ petition inter-alia indicates the same as 'Trade Proficiency Certificate for Ex-servicemen Technician Telecommunication (Foreman)'.
22. Further the diploma produced by the petitioner along with rejoinder as Annex.3 indicates same as 'Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Class I Course'.
23. A bare look at the educational qualification required reveals that the candidate should have ITI (NCVT/SCVT) / NAC or other equivalent qualification in the trade of Electrician/Lineman/SBA/Wireman/Power Electrician and apparently the petitioner does not have the qualification in the trade of Electrician / Lineman / SBA / Wireman / Power Electrician, (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:22:05 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:37221] (6 of 6) [CW-3744/2023] as the diploma indicates the same in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering and the certificate (Annex. 3) pertaining to Trade Proficiency Certificate indicates as Technician Telecommunication (Foreman).
24. The submission made, that the educational qualification only requires ITI (NCVT/SCVT) / NAC which has no relation with the trade and the trade is required only in case of equivalent qualification, has been noted only to be rejected.
25. A plain reading of the educational qualification noted herein before reveals that the requirement of trade indicated pertain both to the ITI, etc. or the equivalent qualification.
26. So far as the submissions made pertaining to the report of the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag indicating the petitioner as not eligible are concerned, besides the fact that the respondents apparently by way of abundant caution have sought the report from the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag, in absence of the said Sainik Kalyan Vibhag as party-respondent to the present petition, the nature of allegations made pertaining to erasion / overwriting etc. cannot be examined. Even if the report submitted by the Sainik Kalyan Vibhag is not taken into consideration, a plain reading of the educational qualification required as well as the qualification of the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification in the trade required.
27. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 10-arunp/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 08:22:05 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)