The Union Of India, Through ... vs Vijay Punnaswamy P.P. Chinnayya
2017 Latest Caselaw 4729 Bom

WP  6005/13                                          1                            Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 6005/2013

1.    The Union of India,
      represented through the Secretary,
      Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.

2.    The D.G.O.F. / Chairman,
      Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A,
      Auckland Road, Kolkota - 700 001.

3.    The General Manager,
      Ordnance Factory, Chanda, Bhadrawati,
      District - Chandrapur - 442 501.                                     PETITIONERS

                                    .....VERSUS.....

1.    Vijay Punnaswamy P.P. Chinnayya,
      Aged : Major, Occu : Umemployed,
      R/o Plot No.178, Maruti Nagar,
      Duttawadi, Nagpur.

2.    Central Administrative Tribunal,
      Bombay Bench, Camp at Nagpur.      (DISMISSED)           RESPONDENTS

                   Mrs. M.R. Chandurkar, counsel for the petitioners.
                   Shri M.G. Burde, counsel for the respondent no.1.


                                     CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                   A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.                  

DATE : 19 TH JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 03.11.2012 allowing the original

application filed by the respondent no.1 and directing the petitioners to

appoint the respondent no.1 on the post of Fireman Grade-II.

WP 6005/13 2 Judgment

2. The ordnance factory at Chanda had published an

advertisement on 25.07.2009 inviting applications for appointment

to the posts of Fireman Grade-II. The respondent no.1 applied in

pursuance of the said advertisement along with several other

candidates. According to the advertisement, a candidate applying

for the post was required to possess a matriculation certificate,

should have completed basic course of fire fighting from a

recognized institute. In the note appended to the qualification

criteria, it was mentioned that the institutes offering basic course of fire

fighting should be recognized by the State or the Government of

India. Since the respondent no.1 was a meritorious candidate, he

was selected for the post of Fireman Grade-II. The order of

selection was served on the respondent no.1. However, by the order,

dated 10.04.2010, the respondent no.1 was informed that his candidature

was cancelled as he had not secured the certificate of basic or elementary

fire fighting course from an institute recognized by the State or the

Central Government. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection of his

candidature, the respondent no.1 filed original application before the

Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal

allowed the original application filed by the respondent no.1 and directed

the petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 on the post of Fireman

Grade-II. The order of the Tribunal is impugned by the petitioners in the

instant petition.

WP 6005/13 3 Judgment

3. Mrs.Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners,

submitted that the respondent no.1 had secured training as also the

certificate of the basic course of fire fighting from an institute, viz.Eagle

Hunter Detectives Private Limited and since it was informed by the Ex-

Principal of the institute that the said institute was not recognized by the

State or the Central Government, the candidature of the respondent no.1

was rejected. It is submitted that since the respondent no.1 did not fulfill

the criteria pertaining to the qualifications, his candidature was rightly

rejected. It is stated that since Ordnance Factory at Chanda was not a

party to Original Application Nos.286 of 2011 and 681 of 2011, the

Tribunal could not have allowed the original application filed by the

respondent no.1 on the basis of the orders passed in those original

applications.

4. Shri Burde, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1,

supported the order of the Tribunal. It is submitted that in Original

Application Nos.286 of 2011 and 681 of 2011, the applicants had secured

the certificate from the institutes that were registered but, not recognized,

just like Eagle Hunter Detectives Private Limited. It is submitted that

while rejecting the candidature of the respondent no.1, who was much

more meritorious than the other candidates, certain other candidates,

who had secured the certificate in the course of basis fire fighting from

the recognized institute but the courses which the candidates had

WP 6005/13 4 Judgment

undertaken were not recognized, were appointed. It is submitted that

some of the other appointees had secured the certificate in the course of

basic fire fighting for six months and one year from the institutes that

were recognized only in respect of two years full time course. It is

submitted that the Tribunal had rightly allowed the original application

filed by the respondent no.1 on the basis of the orders passed in Original

Application Nos.286 of 2011 and 681 of 2011. The learned counsel

sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

5. While issuing Rule in the writ petition on 16.04.2014, we had

rejected the prayer of the petitioners for interim relief. As a consequence

of the rejection of the prayer for interim relief, the petitioners had

appointed the respondent no.1 on the post of Fireman Grade-II in April-

2014. It is submitted that in the three months training that was given by

the petitioners to all the appointees, the respondent no.1 had performed

excellently and the concerned ordnance factory has issued "AA" certificate

to the respondent no.1.

6. On a reading of the impugned order, it is noticed that the

petitioners had on the earlier occasions appointed the candidates that had

secured the certificate of having undertaken the basic fire fighting course

from Eagle Hunter Detectives Private Limited, from where the respondent

no.1 had secured the certificate. We find that the impugned order of the

WP 6005/13 5 Judgment

Tribunal is based on the order passed in two original application bearing

Original Application Nos.286 of 2011 and 681 of 2011. In those original

applications also, the applicants had passed the basic fire fighting course

from the institutes that were similar to Eagle Hunters Detectives Private

Limited, from where the respondent no.1 had secured the certificate. The

Tribunal noticed while deciding the original application filed by the

respondent no.1 that the petitioners had not maintained the list of the

institutes recognized by the State Government and the Central

Government and had also not considered whether all the courses

conducted in the recognized institutes were recognized or not. The

Tribunal, therefore, while parting with the order in the original

application asked the petitioners to do the needful while making

appointments in future. While rejecting the candidature of the

respondent no.1, we find that the petitioners had appointed some

candidates who had secured the certificate of the basic course from the

recognized institutes but the courses of which the certificate was issued in

their favour were not recognized. The learned Assistant Government

Pleader has tendered a copy of the communication addressed by the

Secretary of the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education which

shows that two years full time diploma courses in the aforesaid institutes

are recognized. Though the duration of the recognized diploma courses

is two years, the petitioners have appointed the candidates that had

completed only six months unrecognized course from these recognized

WP 6005/13 6 Judgment

institutes. In the circumstances of the case, when we find that the other

appointees were also not duly qualified for appointment, the respondent

no.1 cannot be denied the relief, specially when the respondent no.1 is

working on the post of Fireman Grade-II for more than three years. In the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the

Tribunal cannot be faulted with. The Tribunal has rightly asked the

petitioners to maintain a list of recognized institutes before undertaking

the selection process, in future.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no

order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

              JUDGE                                           JUDGE
APTE