Nikhil S/O Subhash Ladse vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15216 Bom

                                                                                        1
                                                                            wp308.2021.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.


                               WRIT PETITION NO.308/2021


 Nikhil S/o Subhash Ladse,
 aged about 27 Yrs., Occ. Nil,
 R/o Old F-57/1 Near New Club,
 MSEB Colony, Prakash Nagar,
 Khaperkheda, Tah. Saoner,
 Dist. Nagpur.                                                                   ..Petitioner.

          ..Vs..

 1.       State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary, Department
          of Energy, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

 2.       Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
          Company Ltd. (Mahavitaran), through its
          Chief Engineer, Prakashgarh, Bandra
          Mumbai.

 3.       Basic Training & Related Instructions
          Center, C/o Govt. Industrial Training
          Institute, Shradhanand Peth, Near
          Dikshabhumi, Nagpur - 22, through its
          Principal.                                                          ..Respondents.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. A.R. Ingole, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
          Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                            ANIL LAXMAN PANSARE, JJ.

DATED :- 25.10.2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

wp308.2021.odt

by consent of the parties present before the Court.

2. According to Mr. A.R. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioner,

if the national apprenticeship certificate which was granted to the

petitioner during pendency of this petition by National Council for

Vocational Training is not accepted by respondent Nos.2 and 3, great

injustice could occur to the petitioner who had scored 18.50 more

marks than the last selected candidate at the Sub-Centre Assistant

(Upkendra Sahayak) examination, which was conducted in pursuance

of the advertisement No.05/2019. Learned counsel submits that the

petitioner had applied online for his consideration of appointment as

Sub-Centre Assistant on 23rd July, 2019 and a few days before

submission of the application, the petitioner had cleared the national

apprenticeship examination held in April, 2017, as per the certificate

dated 7th July, 2020 issued by respondent No.3. He further submits

that though the result of this examination came earlier, the petitioner

was not issued any national apprenticeship certificate by the National

Council for Vocational Training, and was issued to him later on.

Therefore, it is submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to

accept the national apprenticeship certificate of the petitioner and

treat the petitioner as a candidate who has fulfilled the eligibility

criteria and who is suitable for being appointed as Sub-Centre

wp308.2021.odt

Assistant.

3. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 invites

our attention to a copy of the printout of the application dated

23.7.2019 submitted by the petitioner wherein, as pointed out by him,

the petitioner had left the coloumn of educational qualifications in

relation to his clearing of the national apprenticeship examination

blank. He submits that had the petitioner filled up this coloumn and

clearly stated that he had acquired this qualification in April, 2017

from Basic Training and Related Instructions Center, then respondent

Nos.2 and 3 would have considered the claim of the petitioner for his

being appointed to the said post but, as no basis was crated by the

petitioner, the petitioner has lost his right to stake his claim in this

matter.

4. Mr. Ingole, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there

was one coloumn in the application form and it related to obtaining of

national apprenticeship certificate by the petitioner. He submits that

since the petitioner did not receive any national apprenticeship

certificate on the date of the application, although he had cleared the

examination, the petitioner indicated his answer by mentioning " No"

but the fact remains that on the date of the application, the petitioner

wp308.2021.odt

had already cleared the examination.

5. While it is true that the petitioner exercised the option of " No"

against the coloumn pertaining to giving of the information by a

candidate relating to obtaining of national apprenticeship certificate, it

is also true that the petitioner did not mention in the coloumn of

educational qualifications anything about his clearing of the said

examination as per the certificate dated 7 th July, 2020. If the

petitioner has not filled in the information regarding clearance of his

national apprenticeship examination well before filling of application,

there was no opportunity available to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to

scrutinize educational qualifications of the petitioner and, therefore,

now, the petitioner cannot say that as he has already cleared said

examination, his claim to the said post be considered. This is all the

more so because filling of educational qualifications coloumn

pertaining to giving of information in respect of several parameters

such as name of the examination/post, name of the school /

institution and date of the examination, marks secured by the

candidate, total marks of the examination, percentage scored by the

candidate and the class / group secured by the candidate is important.

Giving of such information relating to educational qualifications,

enables the employer like respondent Nos.2 and 3 to verify the

wp308.2021.odt

correctness of each piece of this information and reach to an

appropriate conclusion about the same. It is quite possible that

during such verification, the employer may come across some relevant

fact, as for example, the fact that the institution from where the

candidates claims to have cleared the examination being not

recognized by the National Council for Vocational Training and the

like, which opportunity has been denied to respondent Nos.2 and 3

by the petitioner.

6. In this case, it is the contention of learned counsel for

respondent No.2 that the institution from where the petitioner claims

to have cleared his national apprenticeship examination is not an

institute recognized by National Council for Vocational Training,

which contention is disagreed to by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Whatever may be the factual position, we are of the opinion that the

petitioner having not mentioned the relevant information in the

educational qualifications, though it was available with the petitioner,

the petitioner has lost his right to insist upon respondent Nos.2 and 3

to accept his national apprenticeship certificate issued to him on 20 th

August, 2021, which certificate in original is now tendered before us

for our perusal. Copies of the certificate have not been filed on

record, but, we both have gone through this original certificate. This

certificate mentions the name of the institute as Thermal Power

wp308.2021.odt

Station, Khaperkheda, Dist. Nagpur and it does not make any mention

about respondent No.3. Therefore, on the basis of this certificate it

cannot be said that it relates to the certificate issued by respondent

No.3 relating to the clearance of the national apprenticeship

examination by the petitioner in April, 2017.

7. Thus, we are of the view that no foundation whatsoever having

been laid by the petitioner in his application form, regarding his

passing of the national apprenticeship examination from respondent

No.3, and no nexus of the original certificate seen by us today having

been established with respondent No.3, now the petitioner cannot

claim that national apprenticeship certificate issued to him during the

pendency of this petition should be treated as indicating fulfillment by

him of educational criteria and as relating back to his application

thereby entitling him for his consideration for appointment as

Sub-Centre Assistant. There is no merit in the petition. The petition

stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. The original

certificate is returned back to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

                               JUDGE                                       JUDGE


 Tambaskar.