Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohit Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 22 January, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010
DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 22, 2013
Rohit Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.DS Bishnoi, Advocate for Union of India.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
2. The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the circular dated 22.5.2010, Annexure P6, whereby it has been conveyed to the petitioner that he would be considered eligible for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) in the Indo- Tibetan Border Police Force (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'ITBP') only if he possesses the three years' diploma in Automobile Engineering and produces the requisite certificate and proof thereof at the time of the detailed Medical Examination to be held between the dates 24.5.2010 to 3.6.2010.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010 2
3. The brief factual backdrop that would require notice is that an advertisement dated 23.11.2009 was issued by respondent No.2 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts including 49 posts of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic). Out of such 49 posts, 25 were reserved for the OBC category. Apart from laying down the eligibility conditions as regards age/physical parameters etc., the education and other essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) were in the following terms:
i) Matric or equivalent;
ii) Certificate in Motor mechanic from a recognized institution/ITI with 3 years practical experience in the trade in a reputed workshop or 3 years diploma in automobile engineering.
4. In the advertisement itself, the various stages of selection for the post in question were delineated i.e.
(i) Application forms to be submitted by the eligible candidates along with requisite documents prior to a stipulated date.
(ii) Checking of documents.
(iii) Physical measurement.
(iv) Physical efficiency test (qualifying only).
(v) ITBP Force Scheme of Examination.
(vi) Written test
(vii) Technical/Trade test
(viii) Interview
(ix) Detailed Medical Examination.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010 3
5. The petitioner, who belongs to the OBC category and possesses the qualifications of a three years regular Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile Engineering as one of the main subjects, applied for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic). Upon scrutiny/verification of the documents including his certificates as regards his qualifications, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the physical efficiency test. The petitioner having successfully qualified such physical efficiency test appeared for a written test conducted on 15.2.2010. Having passed such written test, the petitioner was called upon to appear for the Technical/Trade test on 3.3.2010. The petitioner successfully negotiated even such Technical/Trade Test and he was interviewed by a duly constituted Committee. In the final result declared on 12.5.2010, the petitioner has secured the first position at the National level. Based on such result, the successful candidates including the petitioner were called upon to report on 24.5.2010 for the Detailed Medical Examination (DME). It is at such stage that the petitioner was served with the impugned circular dated 22.5.2010 calling upon him to produce the requisite certificate of having qualified the three years Diploma in Automobile Engineering for being considered eligible for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic). It is in the light of such undisputed facts that the present writ petition has been filed.
6. On 2.6.2010 while issuing notice of motion, directions had been issued to the respondents to medically examine the petitioner provisionally.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010 4
7. Reply of the DIG, ITBP, Chandigarh has been filed on behalf of the respondents. A categoric stand has been taken that the petitioner had been allowed to appear in the recruitment process only on a provisional basis. It has been asserted on behalf of the respondents that the requisite qualification for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) is a three years Diploma in Automobile Engineering whereas the Diploma Certificate produced by the petitioner is in the trade of Mechanical Engineering and as such, he cannot be considered as eligible for the post in question.
8. A plea of discrimination has been raised on behalf of the petitioner to assert that in a previous recruitment process candidates possessing the diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile Engineering as one of the main subject had been considered eligible and had been appointed to the post in question. Such assertion was substantiated in terms of referring to document, Annexure R1, appended with the written statement wherein it has been stated that vide memo dated 14.5.2010, six candidates had been selected for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) who were possessing Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile Engineering as a subject.
9. In relation to the present recruitment process, a distinction was sought to be drawn by the counsel for respondents by raising a contention that the earlier recruitment in the ITBP for the post in question was as per Gazette Notification dated 31.8.1999 and in a process of review at the hands of the Recruitment Board and in the light of the aforementioned CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010 5 notification and the latest Rules/advertisement, it is only candidates with Diploma in Automobile Engineering who could be considered eligible for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic).
10. In the light of such stand taken on behalf of the respondents, an order dated 9.5.2012 was passed by this Court directing the learned counsel for the respondents to place on record the Gazette Notification dated 31.8.1999. In deference to the order dated 9.5.2012 passed by this Court, the document at Annexure A1 was placed on record in terms of filing CM No.8939 of 2012 and the same was taken on record.
11. Annexure A1 is a copy of the Notification dated 31.8.1999 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the light of which the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Motor Transport and Motor Mechanic Cadre (Group 'B' and 'C' posts) Recruitment Rules, 1999 were notified. Rule 3 regulates the method of recruitment, age limit and other qualifications for various Group 'B' and 'C' posts in the schedule attached to the Rules. Insofar as the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) is concerned, the essential qualifications for appointment by selection have been prescribed as:
"Certificate in Motor Mechanic from a recognized Institution/Industrial Training Institute with three years practical experience in the trade in a reputed workshop or three years diploma in Automobile Engineering".
12. The qualifications prescribed in the Notification dated 31.8.1999 at Annexure A1 for the post of Head Constable (Motor CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010 6 Mechanic) are identical to the ones prescribed in the advertisement at Annexure P1 in response to which the petitioner had applied. As such, the distinction sought to be drawn to justify the recruitments made in the year 2010 to the posts of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) by selecting candidates possessing Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile Engineering as one of the main subjects in the light of Notification dated 31.8.1999 is non-existent. As such, there would be no justification in holding the petitioner ineligible as regards the present recruitment process is concerned on the basis that he does not possess the three years Diploma in Automobile Engineering. The impugned circular dated 22.5.2010, Annexure P6, to the extent of holding the petitioner eligible for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) only upon production of a Diploma in Automobile Engineering is held to be illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.
13. Even otherwise, the respondent-authorities were bound by the criterion/stages of selection stipulated in the advertisement, Annexure P1, for recruitment to the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic). In the advertisement, it was clearly provided that a candidate would be required to produce the original and attested copies of the documents relating to the educational qualifications, date of birth etc. at the very outset. Still further, it was categorically stipulated that only such candidates who were found eligible on checking of documents would be screened as regards physical measurements and only thereupon would be permitted to participate in the physical CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010 7 efficiency test. Such physical efficiency test (qualifying only) was to be followed by a written test, Technical/Trade test, interview and finally candidates selected in order of merit who were to appear in a detailed Medical Examination. There is no dispute as regards the factual position that the petitioner in his application form had clearly spelt out that he possesses the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile Engineering as one of the main subjects. Even an admit card had been issued to him under Roll No.112 wherein his qualification as Diploma in Mechanical Engineering had been mentioned. On 2.1.2010, the petitioner had appeared before a duly constituted Technical Board for scrutiny/verification of documents. It was only upon such scrutiny/verification of all the documents submitted by the petitioner including those pertaining to his educational qualifications that he was permitted to participate in all the subsequent stages of selection. Having secured merit position No.1 at the National level, it was certainly not open for the respondent-authorities to have now turned around to take a stand that the petitioner is not even eligible for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) in the light of his qualifications i.e. three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile Engineering as one of the main subjects. The action runs counter to the very scheme of selection envisaged in the advertisement and smacks of arbitrariness.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned circular dated 22.5.2010, Annexure P6, calling upon the petitioner to produce the requisite CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10816 OF 2010 8 certificate showing him to possess the three years Diploma in Automobile Engineering so as to hold him eligible for the post of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) is set aside. The respondent- authorities shall hold the petitioner eligible to the post in question on the basis of his qualification i.e. three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with Automobile Engineering as one of the main subjects, at par with other candidates who in the earlier process of recruitment for the post in question had been considered eligible even though possessing identical qualifications.
15. Learned counsel for Union of India having apprised this Court that none of the vacancies of Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) pertaining to the OBC category advertised vide Annexure P1 having been filled up, it is directed that the petitioner shall be appointed as Head Constable (Motor Mechanic) in pursuance to the final result declared in which the petitioner has been placed at merit position No.1. It is clarified that such appointment shall be effected subject to the petitioner having been found fit in the Detailed Medical Examination (DME) for which he had been subjected to in pursuance to the interim directions issued by this Court on 2.6.2010.
16. Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
JANUARY 22, 2013 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No