Allahabad High Court
Mranalini Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 44 of 2021
Appellant :- Mranalini Sharma
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner/respondent and learned Standing Counsel.
The appellant by the instant writ petition has challenged the judgment and order dated 22 January 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 49524 of 2017, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of I.T. Lab Instructor, was rejected for want of requisite experience, i.e., three years from the date of acquiring National Trade Certificate or National Apprenticeship Certificate. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that there is no stipulation in the advertisement or the Rules that training period of three years has to be reckoned for the issuance of Training Certificate by National Council for Vocational Training.
Reliance was placed on Rule 10 of U.P. Industrial Training Institute (Instructor) Service Rules, 2014 (for short 'Rules 2014').
Learned Single Judge after considering Rule 10 and the specific clause with regard to experience notified the in advertisement, was of the opinion that the experience would be counted after acquisition of the minimum qualification. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:
"Rule 10 of the statutory rules that regulates appointment on the post of Instructor and the experience clause in the advertisement needs to be analyzed in order to consider the arguments advanced before this Court. The experience stipulated in the advertisement is of different periods, i.e., three years where candidate possesses National Trade Certificate; two years where candidates possesses diploma; and one year where candidate possesses B.Tech. qualification. The possessing of experience is, therefore, directly linked to the qualification obtained by the candidate concerned. The advertisement also talks of the National Trade Certificate being possessed by the candidate alongwith three years training experience."
Learned counsel for the appellant reagitates the same point raised by the appellant before the writ court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2000) 1 SCC 128. The facts of the case therein would not apply to the present case.
In Anil Kumar Gupta (supra) petitioner was working in the department and the question of experience arose upon acquiring a higher qualification during the course of his employment for promotion to a higher post. In the present case, it is case of direct recruitment and not of promotion on acquiring a high degree.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been fairly admitted that counting of experience from the date of acquisition of Training Certificate has not been clearly mandated in Rule 10. Accordingly, the Committee had taken a decision on 12 March 2015, that the experience mandated in Rule 10 would be counted after the candidate has obtained the National Trade Certificate. Applying the decision uniformly, it transpires that the petitioner's experience fell short of three years.
In the circumstances, at this stage, this Court would not enter into the question as to whether Rule 10 mandates computation of experience prior to obtaining the Training Certificate or thereafter, for the reason that respondents had uniformly applied a principle while determining the experience of the candidates.
We are unable to persuade ourselves to take an opinion different from that of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
Mukesh Pal
