Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ct No. 14 vs P.M. Iti Limited & Ors on 28 June, 2018
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
1
W.P. 1486 (W) OF 2008
28.06.18
Sl no. 18 Sukanta Gope.
Ct no. 14 - Vs -
P.M. ITI Limited & Ors.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Saha,
Ms. Manisha Mukherjee
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Tanmay Mukherjee
... for the respondent No. 3
The writ petitioner applied for the post of Technician in the ITI Limited, a Government of India undertaking. The notice prescribing qualification for sponsoring names of eligible candidates issued to the concerned Employment Exchange stipulated against type of workers and qualification as follows : -
a. Type of workers : DIPLOMA HOLDERS IN
required (Designation) ELECTRONICS & COMMN.
b. Description of duties : Installation of Electronic
Telephone Exchanges,
Transmission, equipment,
wiring, testing, repair of
PCBs and telephone
instruments etc.
c. Qualification required : DIPLOMA IN ELECTRONICS
& TELECOMMUNICATION.
2
After undergoing a process of selection the petitioner was appointed as technician on 30th August, 2001 by a letter of appointment. It was however, stipulated in such letter of appointment that the writ petitioner will be on probation for a period of six months that could be extended if considered necessary.
It is further stipulated in the letter of appointment at Clause 9 that the appointment is subject to verification of credentials and testimony.
The petitioner has qualified in the Secondary examination i.e. Class X under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The same is not in dispute. The petitioner also has a diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering issued by the George Telegraph Training Institute, Calcutta i.e. recognized as a lawful Institute to confer such diploma by the Central Government.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that he has not been confirmed in service until 2008 when the writ petition was filed and even until today.
The respondent ITI Limited used an affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit- in-opposition and in the submissions made before me by learned counsel it is stated that the writ petitioner was asked to produce his mark sheet from the custody of the West Bengal State Council of Technical Education (W.B.S.C.T.E.). The said requirement was communicated by letter dated 4th June, 2002. 3
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that since the George Telegraph Training Institute, Sealdah is not recognized under the aforesaid W.B.S.C.T.E. the diploma acquired by the writ petitioner does not meet the requirements of qualification as stipulated in the said post. The writ petitioner has been retained in service albeit on probation even till date.
I cannot accept the submissions of the respondents. The respondent No. 1 is itself the Central Government organization. The qualifications and type of workers stipulated in the request made to the Central Employment Exchange as set out herein above does not stipulate that the diploma of the writ petitioner is required to be recognized by the W.B.S.C.T.E. The said George Telegraph Institute is admittedly recognized by the Central Government. There can be no dispute to the same. The respondent No. 1 has curiously at no point of time disputed the validity of the diploma issued by the said George Telegraph Institute. In any event the requirement of any diploma to be recognized by the W.B.S.C.T.E. is not available in the notice issued to the Employment Exchange.
In this circumstances I am of the clear view that the stand of the respondents is inappropriate. The writ petitioner is also on service and has not been terminated in any way or any other ground. There could therefore be a presumption that the respondent No. 1 was not very clear as regards non- compliance of any particular requirement of the notice of employment. Requiring the petitioner to produce his mark sheet with the W.B.S.C.T.E. is according to 4 me, preposterous. The same cannot be in the custody or control of the W.B.S.C.T.E. Not confirming the petitioner and keeping him on probation on such ground for 17 years is grossly arbitrary, illegal, capricious.
In those circumstances the writ petition must succeed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to forthwith regularize the services of the petitioner. Such regularization shall be notionally done on the expiry of one year from the date of original engagement of the writ petitioner i.e. 1st November, 2001. The writ petitioner shall be entitled all increments, allowances and full salary and emoluments on and from expiry of one year after November, 2001 are permanent employee. If the probation period is taken into consideration for the purpose of regular appointment and promotion in the ITI Ltd. from the year 2001, the regularization of the writ petitioner shall effected from the date of first engagement i.e. from November, 2001.
The seniority of the writ petitioner shall be reckoned from the date of first engagement.
Any promotion that the petitioner would have been entitled to in these 17 years, shall be granted to the petitioner, irrespective of the fact he has not participated in the promotion process from time to time.
All arrears and other benefits payable to the petitioner shall be paid to him within a period of six weeks from the date. The said arrears shall carry interest for period of 10 years @ 7% per annum. The interest is restricted to ten years 5 since the petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2008 post engagement in the year 2001.
With the above directions W.P. 1486 (W) of 2008 is allowed and disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)