Allahabad High Court
Anjul Patel vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief ... on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?RESERVED JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 25-03-2022
Delivered on: 01-04-2022
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 609 of 2022
Petitioner :- Anjul Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj U.P. Civil Secrtt. U.P. Lko And Other
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner who was engaged as District Consultant (FLWM) for working under the Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural) in district Badayun through the service provider has challenged a communication of the Mission Director addressed to the District Magistrate (Badayun) informing him about an enquiry held with regard to the educational qualification and experience of the petitioner wherein it was found that he did not have requisite eligibility conditions and was incorrectly, illegally, engaged through the service provider and accordingly asking the District Magistrate, Badayun to return him to the service provider and for taking necessary action against the erring officers and employees who are responsible for his selection and appointment.
Facts of the case in brief are that for the post in question 4 persons were short-listed and provided by the service provider to the concerned official for their consideration. The petitioner's suitability was assessed and accordingly he was engaged through the service provider. The requisite qualification required for the post in question was B.Tech in civil engineering and 3 years experience in civil work, designing, supervising, potable water and hygiene. It is mentioned in the impugned communication of the Director, Swachh Bharat Mission (Rural), U.P. that in the relevant documents the qualification of the petitioner was mentioned as diploma in civil engineering and it was incorrectly mentioned that he had three years' experience. The impugned communication further mentions that even if the degree in civil engineering obtained by the petitioner in 2019, mark-sheet of which was issued on 20th August 2019, is taken into consideration, then considering the fact that he was engaged through the service provider and joined on 30th August 2019, obviously he could not have had three years experience, as was required, therefore, either way he was not eligible for such selection and appointment and he did not fulfill the eligibility conditions/experience.
On being confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri G.C. Verma, Advocate submitted that the petitioner had enough experience of civil work etc. while he was pursuing his diploma/ degree course. Moreover the suitability was assessed by the authorities and only then he was appointed.
This, however, does not appear to be acceptable in view of the qualification and experience prescribed for being selected and engaged for performing the job of District Consultant in the aforesaid scheme. Moreover this court finds that he had mentioned his experience as three years which obviously had to be after obtaining the qualification of degree in civil engineering and as the mark-sheet of the degree was issued only on 20th August 2019 and he was selected and joined on 31st August 2019, therefore, obviously he did not have the requisite 3 years' experience. The experience had to be after obtaining the degree, and not otherwise, as only such experience could have any practical value.
At this stage Sri Verma relying upon a decision reported in (2001) 3 SCC 328, Buddhi Nath Chaudhary & ors. v. Abahi Kumar & ors., submitted that in any case after joining on 31st August, 2019 he had acquired the requisite experience which should not go waste and the alleged lack of experience at the time of recruitment should not have been made a ground for disengaging him at this stage.
In this regard the court finds that even if this aspect is taken into consideration, he has not acquired three years' experience as three years will be completed in August 2022. In any case, whether with the experience allegedly acquired by him after 31st August 2019 the concerned opposite parties would like to engage him through the service provider and continue him to do so or not, is not within the domain of this court in view of the apparent non-fulfillment of requisite experience at the time of applying for the job and joining after selection. It is always open for the concerned opposite parties to take a call on this aspect of the matter as to whether in view of the experience acquired after 31st August 2019 if the work and conduct of the petitioner has been suitable to seek his services through the service provider, but, it is not for this court to issue any direction in this regard for his engagement, therefore leaving this aspect of the matter open for consideration of the concerned opposite parties as per their choice, as far as this writ petition challenging the communication dated 17.1.2022 is concerned, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the same, the facts being apparent and admitted on record. No other ground helps the petitioner. The petitioner should not have mentioned his experience as three years' while applying for the job. Subject to the above this writ petition is dismissed.
.
(Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date :- 1.4.2022
A.Nigam
