Director General, Esi ... vs Pawan Kumar Verma & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 1556 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1760/2011

Director General, ESI Corporation & Anr.    ....Petitioners
                  Through Ms. Rekha Palli, Ms. Punam Singh &
                            Ms. Amrita Prakash, Advocates.

                    VERSUS

Pawan Kumar Verma & Anr.           ...Respondents
              Through Mr. Ranbir Yadav and
                      Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Advs. for Resp. 1.
                      Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. for UOI/R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                 ORDER

%                               17.03.2011

      Joint     Director   (Recruitment),   Employee   State    Insurance

Corporation, vide advertisement dated 28th March, 2009, had invited

applications to the post of Plaster Technician. In the advertisement

and as per the Recruitment Rules, the essential qualifications

prescribed for the post of Plaster Technician are as under:-

"a) 10+2 with Science subject from a recognized Board.

b) Two years Experience in Plaster of Paris Techniques in an Orthopedic department of a recognized hospital/medical Institution."

2. Respondent NO. 1, P.K. Verma, fulfils the twin conditions. He

has passed 10+2 examination with Science subject from a recognized

Board and also has two years experience in Plaster of Paris techniques

in an Orthopedic department of recognized hospitals and medical

institutions. However, he was denied appointment on the ground that

he had cleared 10+2 examination in November, 1998, whereas his two

years experience in Plaster of Paris technique in orthopedic department

relates to the period prior to November, 1998. OA No. 1734/2010 filed

by the respondent No. 1 has been rightly allowed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi by the impugned order

dated 25th November, 2010 on the ground that the Recruitment Rules

and the advertisement did not prescribe that the experience should

have been grained after the candidate has cleared 10+2 examination.

The said condition cannot be read into the Recruitment Rules and the

advertisement quoted above. There is no such requirement. It does not

matter whether the experience is before or after 10+2 examination. It

may be noted here that as per the petitioners themselves, the

respondent No. 1 meets the essential experience requirement as he has

worked as a Plaster Technician w.e.f. 3rd July, 1995 to 30th September,

1996 in Kamlesh Medical Centre and had also worked in the plaster

room of ESI Hospital, Noida w.e.f. 1st February, 2002 to 30th

November, 2003. The Tribunal has recorded that the

documents/certificates of experience were submitted by the respondent

No. 1 within the stipulated time.

4. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the

present writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE March 17, 2011 kkb