Delhi High Court
Gnct Of Delhi & Ors. vs Rahul Dev on 29 April, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: April 29, 2013
+ WP (C) 2627/2013
GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Ms.Latika Chaudhary,
Advocate
versus
RAHUL DEV ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Raman Duggal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Relying upon paras 19, 20 and 24 of the decision reported as
(2000) 1 SCC 128 Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. MCD & Ors.; and
distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (2001) 2
SCC 362 Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors. Vs. S.Gopalakrishnan, vide
impugned decision dated January 23, 2013, interpreting the essential
qualifications and experience required to fill up the post of Instructor
(Maths) the Tribunal has held that the respondent was duly qualified as
also eligible for the post in question notwithstanding there being an
overlap in the period of experience and the diploma obtained by the
respondent.
2. The essential qualifications and experience for the post were
a Matriculation or equivalent degree and a diploma in Mechanical
Engineering with one year practical experience in an Engineering
Workshop of repute or a year's training at the Central Training Institute.
3. The experience certificate dated August 22, 2007 issued by
an Engineering Workshop of repute certified that respondent had been
working with the institute since July 10, 2006, and undisputedly the
respondent had obtained a diploma in Mechanical Engineering on June
19, 2007.
4. As per the petitioner the practical experience of one year had
to follow after diploma was obtained.
5. In Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra), following the law
declared in the opinion reported as (1995) Supp. (3) SCC 332 Subhash
Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court was considering a pari-
materia provision where essential educational qualification was a degree
and experience required was of two years. It was held that since the Rule
did not state that the two years' experience had to be after degree was
obtained, it hardly mattered whether the experience was before obtaining
the degree or the two periods overlapping.
6. In S.Gopalakrishnan's case (supra), with reference to the
decisions reported as (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 584 N.Sureshnathan & Anr.
Vs. UOI and (1995) 3 SCC 332 Gurdayal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab the Supreme Court opined that wherever an additional
qualification or experience was prescribed it would only mean acquiring
experience after obtaining the necessary qualification.
7. Suffice would it be for us to note that on the same subject we
are finding two views expressed by the Supreme Court, and a third
possible view could be that if the past practice consistently followed was
to insist upon experience following acquisition of a degree, on stating and
establishing said fact, the Department could insist that its Rule must be
understood to mean that experience had to succeed the degree obtained.
8. It is settled law that if on a proposition of law two views are
possible, a writ court would not substitute the view taken by the Court of
first instance.
9. It is not the case of the petitioners that in the past the
Department had been interpreting the Rule as is propounded by the
petitioners.
10. The view taken by the Tribunal is as per the law declared by
the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta's case and notwithstanding there
being an opinion of the Supreme Court which takes a contrary view, we
do not interfere with the impugned decision for the reason two views
were possible and the Tribunal had to adopt one.
11. The writ petition is dismissed but without any orders as to
costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
APRIL 29, 2013
mamta
