Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Patel And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1820 of 2023
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Patel And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Utsav Mishra
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Shri Alok Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Utsav Mishra, learned Counsel for Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission, Lucknow.
The present petition (under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Notification/select list dated 21.01.2023 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission i.e. the opposite party no.3, contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, to the extent the names of the petitioners have been excluded;
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned Notification/select list dated 21.01.2023 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission i.e. the opposite party no.3, contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition only to the aforesaid extent;
(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the rightful claim of the petitioner for being appointed on the posts of Workshop Instructor (Sheet Metal/Painting) (Government Polytechnic) in pursuance of the Advertisement No.18(5)/2016 issued online on 21.09.2016, keeping in view the letter dated 26.08.1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, before issuance of any appointment letters to the selected Candidates in impugned notification dated 21.01.2023.
(iv)...
(v)..."
In pursuance to Advertisement No.18(5)/2016 issued online on 21.09.2016 for the post of Workshop Instructor (Sheet Metal/Painting) (Government Polytechnic) in the Department of (Technical Education) U.P. Kanpur, the petitioners applied and participated in the selection process and they obtained more than cut off marks on the basis of their education testimonials, however in the final select list dated 21.01.2023 their names did not appear in the said select list against 36 post of Workshop Instructor (Sheet Metal/Painting) (Government Polytechnic) in the Department of (Technical Education) U.P. Kanpur. The petitioners claim to possess National Apprenticeship Certificates.
The first ground to challenge the select list and the advertisement is that it was not issued as per the rules, however, Shri Utsav Mishra, learned Counsel for Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission has produced the relevant Rules dated 19.07.1988 which are the extant rules and if one compares the impugned advertisement, it is evident that the impugned advertisement has been issued strictly in accordance with the Rules.
Shri Alok Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to submit that there are any other rules after the Rules of 1988 which govern the field.
The next submission of Shri Alok Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the eligibility qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Workshop Instructor (Sheet Metal/Painting) (Government Polytechnic) is three years G.S.T.S. certificate or high school certificate with G.T.I. or ITI/Polytechnic or diploma in the concerned trade. It is also submitted that the petitioners were having National Apprenticeship Certificate in painting and they were eligible for appointment on the post of Workshop Instructor (Sheet Metal/Painting) (Government Polytechnic). In support of this submission the learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a notification issued by Government of India, Ministry of Labour dated 26.08.1999 (Annexure No.9 to this writ petition) wherein, it has been said that National Apprenticeship Certificate awarded for a particular trade is recognized as a higher grade than N.T.C. awarded in the same particular trade.
Shri Alok Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the petitioners have in their possession higher qualification than prescribed under the Rules of 1988 or in the advertisement, their candidature should have been considered. They had obtained higher marks than the cut off marks they ought to have been selected.
On the other hand, Shri Utsav Mishra, learned Counsel for Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission states that possessing higher qualification is not the eligibility qualification. There is always difference between having eligibility qualification and higher qualification. If a person does not fulfill the eligibility qualification, even if he possesses higher qualification, such a candidate cannot claim for selection inasmuch as he would lack the eligibility qualification as per the rules or advertisement. In support of said submission Shri Utsav Mishra, learned Counsel for Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission places reliance on following judgments of this Court:-(1) Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6655(S/S) of 2016 (Alok Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) (2) Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2016 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.229 of 2016 (Kartikey vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) (3) Judgment and Order of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2019 SCC Online All 4471, wherein both the aforesaid judgments upheld to be validly decided.
Shri Utsav Mishra, learned Counsel for Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission has also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another vs. Anit Kumar Das reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 897.
Considering the aforesaid judgments and submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the present petition is not liable to succeed inasmuch as the petitioners do not possess the eligibility qualification which are prescribed under the rules and in the advertisement pursuance to which the selections have been made.
In view thereof, the present petition fails, which is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2023
Piyush/-
