Allahabad High Court
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And Another vs Rajesh Kumar And 3 Others on 31 October, 2019
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder, Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 7 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1111 of 2019 Appellant :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. And Another Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gauri Shankar Yadav,Sanjeev Singh Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Sri K.G.Shukla, learned advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3.
The instant Special Appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 12th September, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.11463 of 2019 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow and another). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition with a direction upon the Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (being respondent No.2 in the writ proceedings), to declare the result of the writ petitioner considering him qualified for selection to the post of Technician Grade-II Electrical (Trainee) and issue him an appointment letter, subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility criteria, as per his merit.
This Special Appeal has been preferred by the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director (CMD), Lucknow and the Electricity Service Commission Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow, through its Secretary.
The detailed facts of the case have been stated in the impugned judgment and order. In order to avoid prolixity, we refrain from reproducing the same. The only issue which fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge is whether the respondent/writ petitioner's candidature for selection and appointment to the post of Technician Grade-II Electrical (Trainee), pursuant to an advertisement dated 17th February, 2018, could have been rejected by the concerned authority for such reason which has been construed by the learned Single Judge as a ''highly technical objection''.
As per clause 2 of the advertisement dated 17th February, 2018, it was an essential requirement that the candidate must possess the requisite qualification at the time of filing his/her application which, admittedly, was 14th March, 2018. Clause 2 of the advertisement reads as follows:
"अनिवार्य शैक्षिक अहर्ताएं आवेदन के समय अभ्यर्थी के पास निम्न शैक्षिक अहर्ता का होना अनिवार्य है।
माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद्, उ0 प्र0 की हाईस्कूल या समकक्ष परीक्षा, विज्ञान एवं गणित विषयो में उत्तीर्ण होने के साथ नियमित छात्र के रूप में निम्नांकित ट्रेडो में से किसी एक ट्रेड में अखिल भारतीय अथवा राज्य व्यावसायिक प्रमाण-पत्र (NCVT-SCVT) का होना आवश्यक है:-
i. इलेक्ट्रीशियन ii. इलेक्ट्रिकल iii. इलेक्ट्रिकल (कौसल विकास के अंतर्गत विद्युत् वितरण)"
A bare perusal of the aforesaid clause reveals that the candidate applying for the post-in-question must hold a certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT)/State Council for Vocational Training (SCVT) in any of the trades as specified under clause 2.
According to the appellants, as of date of filing of the application, the respondent/writ petitioner had no certificate in his possession. However, according to the respondent/writ petitioner, in his application form, he had given his enrolment number which was relatable to the certificate number which he had obtained from the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT). As such, according to the learned advocate for the respondent/writ petitioner, it could not be said that his client had no certificate which was relatable to the enrolment number. He further submitted that by providing the enrolment number in an application form instead of providing the certificate number was a bona fide mistake on the part of his client and this would be apparent from the fact that the certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) carries the enrolment number in the certificate itself.
We find from a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order that the learned Single Judge has considered this aspect of the matter and formed a view that the appellants (being the respondents in the writ proceedings) had taken a "highly technical objection".
At this point of time, we need to examine whether the ground taken by the respondents (being the appellants herein) was in the nature of a "highly technical objection" or it was a substantial ground and was also a reflection of a mala fide motive of the respondent/writ petitioner to misrepresent before the authorities concerned that he had a certificate in his possession whereas he actually never had a certificate in his possession as on date of filing of his application.
In order to answer this issue, one requires to go through the records. The records reveal certain uncontroverted facts. The application of the respondent/writ petitioner was lodged on 7th March, 2018. The certificate - copy whereof has been annexed to the papers before us - appears to have been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship and National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), described as National Trade Certificate, on 10th December, 2018. As such, as of the date of lodging of the application, the respondent/writ petitioner could not possibly have the certificate in his possession for the simple reason that certificate was not even in existence at that point of time. The only plausible reason as to why the respondent/writ petitioner had provided his enrolment number in the application form (although he was required to provide the certificate number specifically) is that as of 7th March, 2018, there was no certificate in existence, although clause 2 of the advertisement dated 17th February, 2018, mandatorily required the candidate to give the certificate number "which was in his possession". Certainly, this cannot be brushed aside lightly as a "highly technical objection", as sought to be observed by the learned Single Judge. Rather, the respondent/writ petitioner was conscious of the fact that he had no certificate in his possession as on the date of lodging of his application and therefore it will be presumed that he had a mala fide motive in his mind while providing the enrolment number in the application form instead of a non-existent certificate number only in order to misrepresent before the authorities concerned that he had a certificate in his possession.
It would, however, have been a "highly technical objection" only in the factual scenario where the certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT) in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner was actually in existence as on the date of lodging of his application form, which certainly was not the case.
Therefore, we are unable to accept the view of the learned Single Judge that the answering respondents (being the appellants herein) had taken a "highly technical objection". Rather, we would hasten to observe that the objection taken by the answering respondents (being the appellants herein) was substantive in nature and could not have been brushed aside lightly by the learned Single Judge describing the same to be "highly technical objection".
For reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition, consequently, stands dismissed.
The Special Appeal stands, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Ashish Tripathi (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.)