Delhi Subordinate Services ... vs Ranbir Singh & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 2908 Del

$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                                W.P.(C) 4127/2013

                                             Date of decision: 22nd April, 2016

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR.
                                               ..... Petitioner
                 Through   Mr. Satyakam, Additional Standing
                           Counsel.

                  versus
RANBIR SINGH & ANR.                                             ..... Respondent
                  Through                    Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with
                                             Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate for
                                             R-1.
                                             Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and the Government of

NCT of Delhi in this writ petition impugn the order dated 5th November,

2012 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal

(Tribunal, for short) in OA No.304/2012, which was filed by Ranbir Singh,

the respondent No.1.

2. The impugned order allows the aforesaid OA with the following

directions:

"16. In view of the above, we allow the O.A. and to direct the respondents No.3 and 2 to the following course of action:-

(i) The respondent No.3 to amend their RRs with regard to eligibility to the post of Draftsman. They may like to append a list of actual certificates/degrees/diplomas of 2 years duration which they wish to consider. This amendment must be carried out before the next recruitment, but will not apply to advertisement which may have been issued already.

(ii) They will scrutinize the appointment order of the 7 named persons. If they have been given appointment as Draftsman Grade III that is the post applied for by the applicant on the basis of their eligibility being National Certificate of Trade from an ITI, the same benefit must be extended to the applicant i.e. declare him eligible in terms of the Recruitment Rules. Subject to other condition i.e. skill test/medical test etc. of appointment being satisfied, he would be given an offer of appointment. The whole exercise to be carried out within 3 months of receipt of copy of this order"

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the essential qualifications as

stipulated in the Recruitment Rules of the Delhi Jal Board for the post of

Draftsman, Grade-III under post code 68/07, read as under:-

"Essential Qualifications: (1) Matriculation of a recognized university or equivalent"

(2) Passed two years diploma in Draftsmanship from a recognized institution.

(3) Age limit: Between 18 to 27 years relaxable as per Rules/G.O.I. Instructions."

What is highlighted and emphasized is that the essential qualifications

stipulated in the Recruitment Rules is two years diploma in draftsmanship

from a recognized institution. The first respondent, it is stated, is a

matriculate and has a certificate issued by the National Council for

Vocational Training called the National Trade Certificate in Draftsman

(Civil). He does not possess the two years diploma in draftsmanship from a

recognised institution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on decision dated 9th April,

2013 in W.P.(C) 6947/2012, DSSSB Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. and other

connected matters. In this case, the candidates were Draftsman with the

National Trade Certificate and the eligibility qualification as prescribed was

two years diploma in Draftsmanship (Civil) from a recognized institution.

W.P.(C) 6947/2012 was allowed, reversing the judgment of the tribunal in

favour of the candidates, with a direction to the New Delhi Municipal

Corporation to forthwith amend Recruitment Rules in conformity with their

stand taken before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the selection process was to be

completed by issue of a fresh advertisement.

5. Learned counsel for the first respondent relies upon decision dated

22nd December, 2009 in W.P.(C) 13732/2009, Ministry of Railways & Ors.

Vs. Gaurav Shankhdhar & Ors. which refers to the communication/opinion

of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, an expert body. It was observed

that issue of diplomas stands discontinued since 1959 and in its place the

National Industrial Training Centre issues certificates in respect of specific

trades. The findings on the said aspect recorded in this decision reads as

under:-

" The petitioners did not contend before the Tribunal that the diploma course had not been discontinued since 1959 which is apparent from the reply filed by Shri Shailendra Kumar, Chairman Railway Recruitment Board, Gorakhpur. The respondent no.1 had passed the prescribed trade test in the trade of Health Sanitary Inspector in July, 2005 after undergoing training from August, 2004 to July, 2005 and he was awarded 82% marks and a certificate dated 16th November, 2005 was issued to him by Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Government of N.C.T of Delhi. The Deputy Director of Training, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, D.E.G.E.& T in her letter dated 1st June, 2007 has categorically stated that the purpose of recruitment to the subordinate posts and services under the Central Government, the Diploma in Craftsmanship, awarded to trainees admitted under the Craftsman/Dispatched Persons Training Scheme before February, 1959 and the National Trade Certificate awarded thereafter in the Trades, is recognized.

x x x x x x

The learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to give any rational or valid reason as to why the certificate was not valid prior to 2008 even though the Ministry of Labour and Employment was categorical in its communication dated 1st June, 2007 that the certificate is valid after 1959. Petitioners' plea is not that the certificate course has undergone any major structural changes since 2008, and therefore it cannot be equivalent to the Diploma Course, or that prior to 2008, there had been major differences in the courses of Diploma and Certificate.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent further relies on

the communication dated 1st September, 2010, by the Assistant Director

(Exam.), Department of Training and Technical Education, Government of

Delhi stating that they issue Draftsman (Civil) Certificates to successful

trainees who have undertaken the course as certified by the National Council

for Vocational Training. Diploma certificate was/is not issued by the said

body. Our attention is drawn to another communication/circular No. DGET-

19/26/96-CD dated 21st May, 1997 issued by the Government of India to

the effect that the previous recognition granted to the diplomas in

Draughtsman (Civil) and Draughtsman (Mechanical) awarded by the

DGE&T stands extended to the National Trade Certificate in

draughtsmanship awarded by the National Council for Vocational Training

to candidates who have studied or had trained in the recognised institutes or

centres affiliated to the National Council.

7. It is noticeable that the earlier decision of the Division Bench in the

case of Gaurav Shankhdhar (supra) was not brought to notice in Sanjeev

Kumar & Ors (supra). Letter dated 1st September, 2010 issued by the

Government of Delhi, Department of Training and Technical Education and

the circular issued by the Government of India dated 21 st May, 1997 were

also not brought to the notice of the Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar &

Ors (supra).

8. The question would be whether the certificate in question is

equivalent to the diploma as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules. In case the

certificate in question is equivalent to the diploma as prescribed in the

Recruitment Rules, then the certificate holder cannot be disqualified and

would be eligible. However, in case the certificate is not equivalent to the

diploma as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, the said candidate would be

disqualified. In the latter case/situation, it may be desirable to follow the

mandate in Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. (supra), i.e., to amend and update the

Recruitment Rules to make them contemporaneous. However, if the

certificate is found and held to be equivalent, then amendment etc. would

not be required and necessary. Care and caution should be exercised by the

first petitioner when advertisements are published for posts with similar

eligibility requirements. Had caution been exercised and the judgments of

this court considered, this controversy and litigation would not have arisen.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the question of

equivalence should not be determined and decided on the basis that in 1996

or by mistake or error earlier, the certificates awarded by the National

Council for Vocational Training were accepted without examining the

question of equivalence. We accept and recognize that law does not

recognise the principle of negative equality. However, in case the said

exercise of equivalence has been undertaken and it was held that the

certificate in question was equivalent to the diploma, different consequences

could follow. It is also equally true that in the case of administrative

decisions, for good and sufficient grounds a different decision can be taken

and the principle of no review is not applicable.

10. In view of the aforesaid position, we dispose this writ petition

directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to examine the question of

equivalence and thereafter proceed and decide the question of eligibility.

We clarify that we have not given any specific direction to the Government

on any aspect and it is open to the Delhi Government to proceed in

accordance with law. With regard to the direction given by the Tribunal in

paragraph (iii), we again leave it open to the government to decide.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is

disposed of. No costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

APRIL 22, 2016 NA