The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the Petitioners’ candidature in the selection process convened by Pune Municipal Corporation for appointment to the post of Assistant Encroachment Inspector. The Court observed that Equivalence/similarity is required to be recognized in respect of specific courses and the same cannot be assumed based on logic.
Brief Facts:
Pune Municipal Corporation had issued an advertisement dated 20th July 2022 inviting applications for filling up various posts. One of the posts advertised was Assistant Encroachment Inspector. The essential qualification for the post inter alia included passing of Surveyor Course or Sub-Overseer Course or similar course. Petitioners, who had undergone the Construction Supervisor course, claimed eligibility for the post of Assistant Encroachment Inspector stating that their qualification is covered by the expression ‘similar course’.
The Municipal Corporation however held the petitioners ineligible. In the list of ineligible candidates, the reason mentioned against the names of petitioners was non-possession of qualification of Surveyor course and qualification possessed by them not being equivalent.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the word used in the recruitment rules is not ‘equivalent’ but ‘similar’. He relied upon the government resolution dated 11th March 2008 by which the Public Works Department accorded equivalence to the course of Construction Supervisor for the post of CEA. He submitted that since candidates undergoing the Construction Supervisor course are eligible to be appointed as CEA, which post is created by the abolition of the post of Sub-Overseer, such candidates are required to be treated as eligible for the appointment on the post of Sub-Overseer. Hence, he contended that the course of Construction Supervisor is required to be treated as a ‘similar course’ within the meaning of the recruitment rules/eligibility criteria of the advertisement.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the petition and argued that the qualification possessed by petitioners cannot be considered similar or equivalent to the one prescribed in recruitment rules/advertisement. Mr. Kulkarni relied upon the government resolution dated 28th September 2012 by which equivalence was granted to various courses. In the list appended to the said government resolution, the post of Sub-Overseer did not find a place whereas the post of Surveyor is granted equivalence to that of Certificate Course in Construction Surveyor.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that Equivalence/similarity is required to be recognized in respect of specific courses and the same cannot be assumed on the basis of logic.
Further, the Court remarked that the employer has determined the qualifications required for the post of Assistant Encroachment Officer and further arrived at a conclusion that the course of Construction Supervisor is not similar to the requisite course of Sub-Overseer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer. Petitioners have been rightly held ineligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Encroachment Inspector.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the course of the Construction Supervisor would not be covered by the expression ‘similar course’ to that of a Sub-Overseer.
Case Title: Rekha Uttamrao Tapse vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. AND Atul Mukinda Bhalerao & Ors. vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2541 OF 2023 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 898 OF 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Anturkar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
