Bombay High Court
Sachin Kamlakar Gadekar And ... vs The Chief Engineer Mset Company ... on 24 January, 2018
Bench: S.S. Shinde
(1) wp4835.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4835 OF 2016
1. Sachin S/o. Kamlakar Gadekar, .. PETITIONERS
Age-28 years, Occu-Private Service,
R/o. Bajaj Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad
2. Santosh S/o.Dnyandeo Kokate,
Age-26 years, Occu-Self Employed,
R/o. Rajuri, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar
3. Kiran S/o. Shivaji Bhapkar,
Age-22 years, Occu-Private Service,
R/o. Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
Versus
1. The Chief Engineer .. RESPONDENTS
Maharashtra State Electricity
Transmission Company Ltd.,
EHV, O & M Division,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad
2. The Chief Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Transmission Company Ltd.,
EHV, O & M Division,
Nashik, Tq. & Dist. Nashik
Mr.S.B.Solanke, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.S.V.Adwant Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 26/01/2018 02:14:49 :::
(2) wp4835.16
CORAM :S.S. SHINDE &
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
RESERVED ON :10.01.2018
PRONOUNCED ON :24.01.2018
J U D G M E N T [PER: S.M. GAVHANE, J.] :-
. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioners are seeking
directions to the respondents to modify the advertisement
No.2/2016 thereby providing the 10% additional marks for
the petitioners as they have completed their
apprenticeship as Lineman with Maharashtra State
Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. [MSETCL] for two
years.
2. Case of the petitioners' is that they have
completed their ITI course in Electrician Trade and
accordingly the certificates of completion have been
issued in their favour by the Secretary, State Council
for Vocational Education and Training, Maharashtra State,
Pune. The respondents company is providing the
apprenticeship for the candidates who have completed
their ITI as regards the Electrician Trade. There are two
Trades for apprenticeship, one is Electrician and another
is Lineman. So far as the Electrician Trade is concerned
(3) wp4835.16
it has one year apprenticeship and for the Trade of
Lineman it was two years apprenticeship. The petitioners
have completed their two years apprenticeship as Lineman
under the Apprenticeship Scheme with respondents and
accordingly certificates are issued in their favour in
due course.
3. The respondents i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
respectively the Chief Engineer of Aurangabad and Nashik
Division of MSETCL. The respondents have issued an
advertisement for filling up the posts of Technician
Grade-IV on 01.04.2016. As per said advertisement more
particularly as per Clause-11(4) it is provided that the
candidates who have completed their apprenticeship as
Electrician, they are entitled to get 10% additional
marks and therefore it has been directed to submit the
certificates to that effect alongwith on-line form. There
are two separate advertisements published by respondent
Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner No.1 has applied with
respondent No.1 and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have
applied with respondent No.2. The candidates who have
completed apprenticeship as Electrician have completed
only one year apprenticeship and as compared to them the
petitioners are more experience and have completed two
years apprenticeship with respondents. But, unfortunately
(4) wp4835.16
10% additional marks are provided for the candidates who
have completed apprenticeship as Electrician and not to
the candidates who have completed apprenticeship as
Lineman for two years.
4. The respondent No.1 has filed affidavit-in-
reply stating that the respondents have not violated any
statutory, legal, fundamental or constitutional rights of
the petitioners. The petitioners are requesting the Court
to sit in appeal over the recruitment rules formulated
and circulars issued by the MSETCL which is impermissible
by law. There is no statutory bar and/or no codified
prescriptions, which prohibit the Company from taking a
decision in its interest and for that purpose framing a
recruitment policy, depending upon the class, category
and nature of the posts and the hierarchy of
administration and requirement of efficiency for such
posts, thus there is no illegality in the decision making
process of the Company. The petitioners have no right
whatsoever to interfere in the recruitment process
adopted by the Company, therefore there was no cause for
the petitioners to file the present writ petition. The
Company has within its authority and power taken a policy
decision in relation to setting the recruitment rules and
eligibility thereunder for Technician Cadre-IV and in
(5) wp4835.16
furtherance thereof, has issued Administrative Circular
No.304 dated 09.01.2012 which reads thus:
"Sub:- Pre- requisites for the newly created
posts in "Technician Cadre".
Preamble
With a view to have better promotional avenues
and optimum utilization of the man power, the
Board under Resolution No.16/60 dated 07.02.2011
as notified vide Administrative Circular No.257
dated 08.03.2011 has accorded approval to merge
Artisan cadre and Line Staff cadre into one
cadre to be called as "Technician Cadre" and
introduced new posts as Technician Grade-I,
Technician Grade-II, Technician Grade-III,
Technician Grade-IV.
Consequent on creation of the new cadre, it was
necessary to prescribe pre-requisite for the
newly created posts under "Technician Cadre".
Therefore as per powers delegated under Note-3
below Regulation 38 of the MSEB classification
and Recruitment Regulations 1961 read with
Administrative Circular No.341 dated 08.02.2000,
the Chairman & Managing Director in consultation
with Director (Ops.), Director (Project) and
E.D.(HR) has accorded approval to prescribe the
pre-requisites for the posts of Head Foreman,
technician Grade-I, Technician Grade-II,
Technician Grade-III, Technician Grade-IV.
The MSEB Holding Co. Ltd. under its Resolution
No.229 dated 01.02.2011 has resolved that any
modification/change in recruitment rules of the
subsidiary companies will require prior
permission of the MSEB Holding Co. Pursuant to
(6) wp4835.16
this resolution, the proposal for change in the
pre-\requisites in "Technician Cadre" was
submitted to the MSEB Holding Co. Ltd."
5. Further it is stated in affidavit of respondent
No.1 that the petitioners cannot profess to be
identically placed with the candidates who have completed
their apprenticeship with the Company in Electrician
Trade. The petitioners have themselves admitted that they
have completed their apprenticeship with the Company as
Lineman and not as Electrician. Therefore, they are not
entitled to get 10% additional marks as claimed by them,
neither have any right to seek the modification in the
advertisement No.2/2016. The Office of Directorate
General of Employment and Training, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi has circulated the syllabus for apprenticeship
in Electrician Trade and Wireman (Lineman), which are
different, therefore the claim of the petitioners of
being identically placed with the apprentices completing
Electrician Trade is a distorted and incorrect claim,
which cannot be entertained. The Supreme Court has, in
catenae of judgments, ruled that the law Courts can
neither prescribe the recruitment rules nor the
qualifications nor can entrench upon the power of the
employer to set the recruitment rules and qualifications
for the candidates applying for the post, so long as the
qualifications and the recruitment rules are not
(7) wp4835.16
violative of any provision of the Constitution, Statute
and rules.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
made submissions in the light of petitioners' contentions
referred to above and in substance submits that as 10%
additional marks are given to the candidates who have
completed apprenticeship as Electrician who have
completed only one year apprenticeship, the petitioners
who have completed two years apprenticeship as Lineman
are also entitled to get 10% additional marks and hence
directions sought by the petitioners in the petition be
issued to the respondents to modify the advertisement.
7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for
the respondents submits that in view of the
Administrative Circular No.304 dated 09.01.2012 referred
to above for any modification or change in the
recruitment rules of the subsidiary Companies will
require prior permission of MSEB Holding Company. The
petitioners cannot profess to be identically placed with
the candidates who have completed their apprenticeship
with the Company in Electrician Trade. Therefore,
petitioners cannot claim directions to the respondents
to modify advertisement to get 10% additional marks like
the candidates who have completed their apprenticeship as
(8) wp4835.16
Electrician as the petitioners have completed
apprenticeship as Lineman and as such the learned counsel
for the respondents has prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. To support his submissions learned counsel for
the respondents has relied upon the decision in the case
of Haribhau Gangadharrao Chate Vs The State of
Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.6337 of 2016
decided on 07.03.2017 and in the case of Gokul Sahebrao
Chavan and others Vs The Executive Engineer and others
in writ petition No.4561 of 2016 decided on 05.10.2017
of this Court.
9. We have perused the petition, affidavit of the
respondent No.1 and the documents filed by the
petitioners including the advertisement No.2/2016. So
also, we have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties.
10. Admittedly petitioners have completed their ITI
Course in Electrician Trade. They have completed
apprenticeship with respondents as Lineman and the
certificates are issued in their favour. They have not
completed apprenticeship as Electrician. The respondents
have issued an advertisement No.2/2016 on 01.04.2016 to
fill up the posts of Technician Grade-IV in the office of
(9) wp4835.16
the company coming under respondent No.2 and the
applications were called on-line. As per said
advertisement particularly as per Clause-11(4) the
candidates who have completed apprenticeship in
Electrician Trade would be given 10% additional marks of
the marks they have obtained in on-line examination while
making the final selection of the candidates. As per
affidavit of the respondent No.1 there is no statutory
bar and /or no codified prescriptions, which prohibit the
Company from taking a decision in its interest and for
that purpose framing a recruitment policy, depending upon
the class, category and nature of the posts and the
hierarchy of administration and requirement of efficiency
for such posts. Moreover, it appears from the affidavit
of the respondent No.1 that it is within the authority
and power of the company to take a policy decision in
relation to setting the recruitment rules and eligibility
thereunder for Technician Grade-IV in the light of
Administrative Circular No.304 referred to above. Thus,
it appears that the respondents Company has in its power
and authority to fill up the posts of Technician Grade-IV
issued an advertisement No.2/2016 to get the best
candidates for the posts advertised by providing 10%
additional marks to the candidates who have completed
apprenticeship in Electrician Trade. In such
( 10 ) wp4835.16
circumstances when the respondents Officers of the
Company have all the powers and authority to fill up the
posts after taking the policy decision in the interest of
Company and when Trade of Electrician and Wireman
(Lineman) are different, it cannot be said that the
petitioners are entitled to get 10% additional marks like
the candidates who have completed apprenticeship as
Electrician by giving direction to the respondents to
modify the advertisement as requested by the petitioners.
As such, we hold that no case is made out by the
petitioners to exercise writ jurisdiction in their favour
to issue directions to the respondents to modify the
advertisement No.2/2016 as per prayer Clause-A of the
petition. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
VishalK/wp4835.16
