Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an advertisement dated 17.06.2020 was issued by respondent no. 3 for appointment of Technician Grade-II and as per advertisement, qualification for appointment was High School or equivalent with Science and Math alongwith two years diploma certificate issued by National Council of Vocational Training (in short "NCVT") / State Council of Vocational Training (in short "SCVT"). Petitioner being Ex-serviceman, has applied for the same having certificate issued by Indian Armed Forces (Army) Trade Proficiency Certificate For Ex-Servicemen dated 29.02.2020, which is equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT, but his candidature has been rejected on the ground that certificate, so issued, is neither equivalent to certificate issued by NCVT/SCVT nor as per requirement of advertisement. He next submitted that Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training vide letter dated 4/13.03.2013 has directed all the Directors of State Government/ UT Administration dealing with Craftsman Training Scheme to treat the certificate issued by respective departments of Army, Air Force and Navy equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/ NCTVT. He next submitted that under such facts and circumstances, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.

Sri Ramesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of newly impleaded respondent no. 4 has filed short counter affidavit, which is taken on record. He also relied upon the very same letter dated 4/13.03.2013 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment Directorate General of Employment & Training and submitted that this certificate is equivalent to the certificate issued by NCVT/ SCVT.

Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it is required on the part of petitioner to fulfill the qualification whatsoever is mentioned in the advertisement and undisputedly, the requirement is to have two years training certificate issued by NCVT/ SCVT in Trade of Electrician, Electrical and Electrical (power distribution under skill development). He next submitted that undisputedly, petitioner is not having the certificate issued by NCVT/ SCVT as desired in the advertisement. Similar controversy came up before this Court on so many occasions and Court has taken the constant view that requirement of advertisement has to be completed.

Lastly, he placed reliance upon another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sudhir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (Special Appeal Defective No. 147 of 2021) dated 19.02.2021, which also shows that condition so mentioned in the advertisement has to be complied. In that case, appellant was having Diploma in Electrical Engineering issued by Indian Air Force. Court after considering the arguments so advanced, came to the conclusion that equivalence to any other course can be given by the council namely AICTE or the State Government for their service and not by any other body having no authority of it for general application. He next submitted that in present case, certificate so required is from NCVT/ SCVT of two years training course, but it has never declared by NCVT/ SCVT that certificate issued by the Indian Armed Forces (Army) is equivalent to certificate issued by the Institution, therefore, same cannot be treated equivalent and the petition may be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only issue before this Court is as to whether certificate so submitted by the petitioner is fulfilling the terms of the advertisement or not, therefore, advertisement dated 17.06.2020 is being quoted herein below;

"

In paragraph 2 of the advertisement under Heading "Essential Educational Qualification", it is clearly mentioned that petitioner must have passed High School or equivalent examination with Science and Math subjects alongwith two years training diploma as regular student from NCVT/ SCVT. In the present case, there is no dispute on the point that petitioner was never a regular student of NCVT/ SCVT and obtained certificate as required by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. This Court in the matter of Munesh Kumar (supra) has dealt with very same issue in which petitioners have completed the training in Electric in service and possess the certificate Proficiency Certificate and in N.A.C. Electrical which is equivalent to qualification as advertised. Lastly, Court has opined that once certificate issued in favour of petitioner is not accepted by the respondents, Court cannot proceed to exercise its authority of judicial review to accord any relief. In present case too, petitioner was issued Trade Proficiency Certificate For Ex-Servicemen issued by Indian Armed Forces (Army) based upon proficiency acquired during 16 years 2 months 27 days of service in the Army. Relevant paragraph of Munesh Kumar (supra) is being quoted below;