Allahabad High Court
Absar Ahmad Khan And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8223 of 2022
Petitioner :- Absar Ahmad Khan And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Energy Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Amit Asthana
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neerav Chitravanshi
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Dr. Amit Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.
This is second writ petition challenging the order dated 15.01.2022 by means of which the petitioners' have been informed under Right to Information Act, 2005 that they could not be selected against the advertisement for the post of Technician (Electrical) dated 17.06.2020 as they do not possess requisite qualification prescribed under the Rules and for a direction to treat the qualification of the petitioners at par with the qualification as advertised. Further prayer has been made for issuance of appointment order in pursuance of the advertisement dated 17.06.2020.
This court in the earlier Writ A No. 6508 of 2022, Absar Ahmad Khan & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors., filed by the petitioners has considered the contention of the petitioners and dismissed the petition by means of the order dated 29.09.2022. However, it was provided that in case the certificate possessed by the petitioners is a certificate of NCVT/SCVT, they may avail the appropriate remedy available under law. In view of the above, liberty was not for filing a fresh writ petition with same prayer and for a direction for equivalence of the certificate of the petitioners which contention was considered and rejected in the said order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trade proficiency certificate issued to the petitioners by the Indian Armed forces is equivalent to the certificate as recognized by the NCVT on the ground that it is being issued on the same norms on which NCVT certificate is issued. For the said purpose the petitioners invited attention of this Court towards pages no. 41 & 52 of the writ petition. However, a perusal of the said pages does not indicate that the certificate of the petitioners is a certificate issued by the NCVT. The counsel for the petitioners also invited attention of this Court towards a certificate issued to one Sachin Kumar at page 62. The said trade proficiency certificate for ex-serviceman has been issued by the Indian Armed Forces mentioning that this certificate shall be treated at par with the certificate issued by NCVT/NCTVT and for employment purposes by all States and Central Government Departments. However, the petitioners has failed to show any such certificate issued in favour of the petitioners. Even otherwise the equivalence cannot be decided by the authority who is issuing the certificate. The equivalence is to be decided, if permissible, by the examining body or the appointing authority for the post in question. The petitioners have applied against the advertisement No. 3 of 2020 which specifically bars the equivalent certificate. A note is appended after point no. 7 that the certificate on basis of distance education or on the basis of experience or in other trade than the required are not acceptable.
This Court had considered all these contentions in the earlier order dated 29.09.2022 passed in Writ A No. 6508 of 2022. This Court had specifically recorded that the equivalence of qualification cannot be decided by this Court and direction can also not be issued for consideration after the declaration of the result.
The petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 11.04.2018 passed in Writ A No. 2652 of 2016, Raj Kumar v. State of UP & Ors. The said judgment has also been considered in the aforesaid order dated 29.09.2022 and a finding has been recorded that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit arising out of the said judgment.
It is also noticed by this Court that the earlier writ petition was also filed without impleading the selected candidates and this writ petition has also been filed without impleading the selected candidates. Once the result has been declared the writ petition is not maintainable without impleading the selected candidates.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to show that the certificate possessed by the petitioners is a certificate of NCVT/SCVT. Therefore, this writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit.
On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to why the petitioners has filed writ petition, when the certificate of the petitioners are not the certificates of NCVT/SCVT and he is merely claiming equivalence which has already been considered and rejected by this Court to be considered at this stage, the petitioners' counsel submits that earlier counsel could not place the complete facts before this Court, therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. This cannot be a ground for filing second writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), which shall be deposited by the petitioners within two weeks, failing which the Senior Registrar of this Court shall take appropriate steps for recovery of the cost.
(Rajnish Kumar, J.)
Order Date :- 7.12.2022
Pradeep/-
