Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to keep one post of Assistant Technician (production) vacant;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and/ or further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Technician (Mechanical) and Assistant Technician (Production) in a selection process conducted by the Respondent-ONGC, NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8657/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/05/2024 undefined Western Sector, Gujarat State, pursuant to the advertisement No. 01/2019. It appears that while filling up of details in the online application, against the question whether the candidate possesses Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD, the petitioner had answered as 'No' and in an alternative question whether the candidate possesses National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT, the petitioner had answered as 'Yes'. It is the case of the petitioner that in fact, the same was mistake committed by him since he had a certificate issued by the Ministry of HRD, as against the certificate which the petitioner had claimed that he had the certificate issued by the NCVT. It is the case of the petitioner that while the final score of the petitioner was 72.05%, which was not enough to secure a place in the select list, yet, according to the petitioner, had the certificate issued by the Ministry of HRD been considered, the petitioner would have been entitled for an additional 05 marks which would have resulted in the petitioner getting selected. Therefore, the petitioner has raised a grievance against the respondents for not considering the certificate issued by the Ministry of HRD.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the petitioner would submit that the issue is in a very narrow compass, inasmuch as, the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8657/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/05/2024 undefined selection criteria indicated is, 85 marks for Written Test, 10 marks for Academic Performance and 05 marks for Apprenticeship Certificate. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the advertisement itself stipulated that a candidate possessing the National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT/SCVT or possessing a Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD, shall be given additional 05 marks for the post in question. It is submitted that in the online application form, the petitioner had stated about the petitioner possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT, as against the petitioner having stated that he does not possess Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the same was an inadvertent mistake. Learned Senior Advocate would draw the attention of this Court to the date of the National Apprenticeship Certificate mentioned in the application form and would submit that the said certificate was with regard to an Apprenticeship Training undergone by the petitioner with the Indian Oil Corporation, dated 28.03.2018. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioner was under a reasonable impression that it is this certificate which would be the Apprenticeship Certificate as required by the respondents and whereas the petitioner had mentioned in the application form that he possesses the said certificate. Learned Senior NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8657/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/05/2024 undefined Advocate would submit that as against the same, for the very training in question, the petitioner had been issued with the Certificate of Proficiency by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that since the petitioner had mentioned about possessing the National Apprenticeship Certificate in the application form, while the petitioner had informed the respondents about the petitioner possessing the Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD and whereas it is in this connection that even in the call letter for documents verification dated 20.11.2020, the petitioner was informed about producing inter alia a Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner having produced the said certificate, which otherwise was the required certificate, yet, the respondents did not take into account the said certificate while computing the entitlement of the petitioner, and hence, the petitioner did not get the 05 marks which otherwise the petitioner was entitled for, resulting in the petitioner not being selected for the post in question.

5. As against the same, the present petition is being contested by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Devang Vyas with learned Advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena on behalf of the respondents. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas would submit that the question is not whether the petitioner is penalized on account of a trivial error committed by the petitioner, rather the question is whether the petitioner is right in contending that he had committed a trivial error or whether the present was a case of the present petitioner trying to take disadvantage of a certificate which had been issued in his favour on a later date. Learned Senior Advocate would submit in this regard that there was no ambiguity in the requirement NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8657/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/05/2024 undefined either the candidate was required to state whether he possessed a Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD or a National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that while filling up the application on 13.02.2019, the petitioner had submitted that he possessed a National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT dated 28.03.2018. Learned Senior Advocate would thereafter draw the attention of this Court to the Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD to the petitioner and would submit that the date of the said certificate was 31.07.2020. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that undoubtedly on the date when the petitioner had filled up the application form he did not have the said certificate and he had only the certificate dated 28.03.2018 which was a certificate of completion of Apprenticeship Training. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that with both the certificates may relate to the very apprenticeship programme, but at the same time, the petitioner was well aware on the date when he had filled up the application form that he did not have the Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the petitioner had at the relevant point of time accurately filled up the form since he had stated about the certificate which he had albeit the said certificate was neither a Certificate of Proficiency issued by the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8657/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/05/2024 undefined Ministry of HRD nor it was a National Apprenticeship Certificate. 5.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vyas would submit that upon the petitioner receiving the certificate issued by the Ministry of HRD, dated 31.07.2020, much after the form had been filled in, that the petitioner had developed a rethink of his qualifications. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that chronology would clearly show that the present was not a case of a trivial mistake, rather the entire case is an attempt by the petitioner to take disadvantage of a certificate issued to him on a later date. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioner having filled up the form consciously and the petitioner at that time not having either of the certificates, and since the respondents were under a strict instruction that only the qualification submitted by the candidate during the online registration process be considered, more particularly the same was to be treated as final and no request for change/addition in qualification be entertained, therefore, the respondents were well justified in not considering the candidature of the present petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate would therefore request this Court not to interfere with the present petition.

(i) On 28.03.2018, the Certificate of completion of Apprenticeship Training issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, (ii) on 13.02.2019, the petitioner had filled in the application form and (iii) on 31.07.2020, the Certificate of Proficiency had been issued by the Ministry of HRD.

10. Insofar as the first question is concerned, to this Court it clearly appears that the petitioner is attempting to take disadvantage of the Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD, which was NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8657/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/05/2024 undefined dated 31.07.2020. As noted hereinabove, on the date when the petitioner had filled up the online application form, the Certificate of Proficiency by the Ministry of HRD was not issued to the petitioner and whereas the only certificate which the petitioner possessed at that time was a Certificate of completion of Apprenticeship Training, whereas the petitioner had at that time mentioned that he was having a National Apprenticeship Certificate. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner, not having any Certificate of Proficiency on the date of filling up of the online application from, did not commit any mistake while stating that he did not have a Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD. As a matter of fact, it would also appear that on the date of filling up of the application, the petitioner did not have either the Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD or the National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT, and whereas the petitioner was not even entitled to state that the certificate dated 28.03.2018 was a National Apprenticeship Certificate. Thus, as noted hereinabove, it would appear that the petitioner for whatever reasons had tried to rely upon an apprenticeship completion certificate issued by the IOC as a National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT. Thus, it could not be stated that the fact of the petitioner writing that he had a Certificate of NCVT i.e. the National Apprenticeship Certificate and not a NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8657/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/05/2024 undefined Certificate of Proficiency issued by the Ministry of HRD, was a mistake. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner stating that he had a National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the NCVT in the application form, and specifically relying upon a certificate which was not the same, the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be rejected at the stage of documents verification only on that count. 10.1 It would also clearly appear that later on, fortuitously, the Ministry of HRD issuing the Certificate of Proficiency to the petitioner, the petitioner is clearly trying to take disadvantage of the same by claiming that he had committed a trivial mistake while filling up the application form.