Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Virender Kaushal vs Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection ... on 20 July, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 80 of 2019
Decided on: 20.7.2020
.
__________________________________________________________________
Shri Virender Kaushal ...........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission and Anr.
..........Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Lokinder Paul Thakur, Senior Panel
Counsel, for respondent No.2.
__________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
250 posts of Pump Operators came to be advertised vide advertisement No. 32-3/2016 dated 18.10.2016, issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure A-5), whereby online applications were invited from the eligible candidates. It stood clearly mentioned in the aforesaid advertisement as well as instructions issued by respondent No.1-Commission for filling up online applications that the date for determining the eligibility of all candidates including the essential qualification(s) and experience, if any, etc., shall be the prescribed closing date for submission of Online Recruitment Application Form (ORA) i.e. 17.11.2016. Besides above, it was also mentioned in the advertisement that candidates must ensure that 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2020 20:21:07 :::HCHP 2their eligibility in respect of category, experience, age and essential qualification etc., is mentioned against each post in the advertisement to .
avoid rejection at the later stage.
2. Perusal of instructions for filling up online applications annexed as Annexure R1/A with the reply filed by respondent No.1 reveals that it was also made clear in the heading ELIGIBILITY CONDITION that "onus to prove that candidate has acquired requisite Degree/Essential qualification before the stipulated date is on the candidate and in the absence of proof, the date as mentioned on the face of the certificate/degree or the date of issue of certificate/degree shall be taken as date of acquiring essential qualifications"
3. Pursuant to aforesaid advertisement, petitioner applied online and respondents relying upon the information furnished by him online, admitted him provisionally to the written screening test amongst other candidates. Petitioner qualified the written screening test and was shortlisted for 15 marks evaluation on the given parameters, but on the date of evaluation, it transpired that Detailed Marks Certificate (DMC) of 4th Semester in the trade of Electrician was issued on 31.12.2016. Since Detailed Mark Certificate qua the aforesaid qualification of the petitioner was issued on 31.12.2016, his candidature was rejected by respondent No.1- Commission. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2020 20:21:07 :::HCHP 3 approached the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 734 of 2018, which after abolishment of the Tribunal stands transferred .
to this Court for adjudication. The main relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition is as follows:-
"That the rejection of the candidature of the applicant for the post of Pump Operator, Post Code-537 vide communication dated 17.1.2018 (Annexure A-12) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and further the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to recommend the name of the applicant for the post of Pump Operator to be appointed in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health, Himachal Pradesh and Justice be done."
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to petitioner's having acquired essential qualification i.e. mark/qualification, 10+2/qualification and certificate/ITI diploma. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to advertisement, as referred herein above, petitioner submitted his application form and he was also permitted provisionally to participate in the written screening test. Problem arose when the petitioner was shortlisted for 15 marks evaluation after his having qualified written screening test. As per the respondents, documents furnished by the petitioner in support of eligibility and other claims made in the application revealed that detailed marks certificate of 4th Semester was issued on 31.12.2016, whereas last date of receipt of application form ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2020 20:21:07 :::HCHP 4 was 17.11.2016. To the contrary, claim of the petitioner is that result of I.T.I. in Electrician Trade done by him was declared on 5.11.2016 and as such, .
he while submitting the online application form rightly claimed himself to have passed diploma in Electrician Trade.
5. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner while fairly admitting that last date of submission of application was 17.11.2016, contended that petitioner had annexed computer generated copy of result sheet (Annexure A-4), perusal whereof reveals that same was generated on 5.11.2016 and on that date, petitioner had already passed certificate/diploma in Electrician Trade. Essential qualification prescribed qua the post code No. 537, against which petitioner had applied, clearly reveals that at the time of furnishing online application, candidate should have passed matriculation or its equivalent from a recognized university-
Board. Besides above, candidate should have also possessed certificate in trades Electrician/Wireman/Diesel Mechanic/Pump Mechanic/Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic from the recognized I.T.I.
6. No doubt, perusal of statement of marks for AITT conducted under the aegies of NCVT, as contained in Annexure A-7, reveals that certificate declaring petitioner to have passed certificate/diploma in electrician trade was issued on 31.12.2016, but it is also not in dispute that result of aforesaid examination was declared much prior to the issuance ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2020 20:21:07 :::HCHP 5 of certificate as has been taken note herein above. Perusal of document generated on 5.11.2016 (Annexure A-4), wherein name of the petitioner .
stands duly reflected, clearly reveals that on 5.11.2016, petitioner had possessed certificate/diploma in Electrician Trade and as such, respondent No.1 could not have rejected his candidature on the ground that since final certificate qua the course in question was issued on 31.12.2016, the petitioner was not eligible to fill up online form because same was to be filled before 17.11.2016.
7. Leaving everything aside, reply having been filed by respondent No.2 clearly reveals that result of All India Trade Test (AITT) under Craftsman Training Scheme (CTS) held in July/August 2016 was declared on 4.11.2016 and the same was made available to the public for downloading from the NCVT MIS- portal on the same day and onwards. Aforesaid reply having been filed by respondent No.2 further reveals that the issuance date mentioned on the document is the date of downloading of the document from the NCVT MIS- portal, meaning thereby, date of issuance of certificate in the case at hand for all intents and purposes would be deemed to be 5.11.2016, when petitioner downloaded the result sheet from the NCVT MIS- portal (Annexure A-4).
Authenticity and correctness of documents indicative of eligibility of the petitioner is not under challenge in the instant case, rather candidature of ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2020 20:21:07 :::HCHP 6 the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that on the date of filling up of online application, he did not possess the requisite .
qualification, which stance of respondents is totally contrary to the record and as such, cannot be allowed to sustain. No doubt, in the case at hand date of issuance of certificate in question is 31.12.2016, but that does not mean that till the issuance of certificate, petitioner had not acquired the required qualifications.
8. At the cost of repetition, it may be noticed that result of All India Trade Test (AITT) under Craftsman Training Scheme (CTS) held in July/August 2016 was declared on 4.11.2016 and the same was made available to the public for downloading from the NCVT MIS portal on the same day. Date for determining the eligibility of all candidates in respect of qualification and experience was 17.11.2016 in terms of advertisement (Annexure A-5) and admittedly, in the case of the petitioner, he had acquired, essential qualification on or before 17.11.2016 and as such, action of the respondent in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is totally uncalled for and cannot be allowed to sustain.
9. Record reveals that on 5.3.2018, Tribunal while issuing notice to the respondents had ordered that result for the post of Pump Operators be not declared without the prior leave of the Court, but subsequently, aforesaid order was modified vide order dated 15.3.2018, whereby the ::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2020 20:21:07 :::HCHP 7 court while permitting the respondents to declare the result of process of recruitment of Pump Operators, directed respondent No.1 to keep one .
post of Pump Operator vacant till the final disposal of the Original Application. One post of Pump Operator is still lying vacant in terms of order dated 15.3.2018 and as such, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the application.
10. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and Communication dated 17.1.2018 (Annexure A-12), whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, is quashed and set-aside and respondent No.1 is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner for the post of Pump Operator against the one post lying vacant in terms of order dated 15.3.2018, forthwith. Needless to say, petitioner would be deemed to be in service from the date when other persons, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement, were appointed against the other posts and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
20th July, 2020 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
::: Downloaded on - 22/07/2020 20:21:07 :::HCHP