Gujarat High Court
Goswami Krunalbharthi Dahyabharthi vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7625 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8164 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13341 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15212 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair No
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial No
question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=============================================
GOSWAMI KRUNALBHARTHI DAHYABHARTHI & 3 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 8 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR GAURAV K MEHTA(5227) for the Petitioner(s) No. 2,4
MR SHALIN MEHTA SR. ADVOCATE WITH MS VIDHI J BHATT(6155) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 7,9
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,8
=============================================
Page 1 of 22
Downloaded on : Tue Feb 13 20:49:06 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 13/02/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present group of petitions is arising out of the common
question of law and facts. The Court has taken up the petitions
for hearing by treating Special Civil Application No.7625 of 2016
as a lead matter and for the sake of convenience, the facts are
taken from the said petition. So far as the lead matter, i.e.
Special Civil Application No.7625 of 2016 is concerned, same is
arising from the following background of facts:-
1.1 That the State Authority had given admission to the
petitioners in Diploma Course on the basis of Standard X and on
merits and the petitioners persuaded Diploma Course in
respective streams successfully and the same was approved by
AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) and the same is
recognized by the Technical Examination Board, Gandhinagar.
On completion of such course, the Diploma Course Certificate
was issued by the State Authority and the petitioners applied for
the post of A-II Level published by respondent - ONGC by way of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
advertisement No.3 of 2014 and the petitioners appeared in
written examination which came to be passed by them. That all
the petitioners remained present for personal interview and
submitted relevant documents as required but they were refused
to attend the personal interview on the ground that they have
not undergone valid Diploma Course and are not having valid
Diploma Certificate. That the petitioners requested the
concerned authority to pass appropriate order in this regard but
the same was denied and such action on the part of respondent -
ONGC is far away from the jurisdiction.
1.2 The petitioners persuaded three years Diploma Course at
Government Polytechnic College and possessed Diploma
Certificate. The respondent - authority appointed petitioner no.1
and 2 on the basis of qualification for the post of "Field Operator"
on tenure basis after completing recruitment process.
1.3 The petitioners have applied for the respective post at A-II
level pursuant to the advertisement. As the petitioners were
eligible, they were permitted to appear in written examination
conducted by the respondent - ONGC and had successfully
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
passed the written examination and they were called for
personal interview and submitted the relevant documents. The
respondent - authority refused to attend the personal interview
on the ground that they have not undergone valid Diploma
Course and not having valid Diploma Certificate. The petitioners
have made representation to the concerned authorities and
hence, the present petitions.
2. Present group of the petition raising almost similar issue
with respect to inaction on the part of the respondent - authority
has been brought before this Court by exercising the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Almost similar
reliefs are prayed for and as such, the relief clause contained in
the lead matter is reproduced hereunder:-
"A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow
this petition.
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate
writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside
the impugned action of the respondent denying the
appointments, without passing any order, to the
petitioners for the recruitment on the A-II level post
though the petitioners are eligible and qualified as
required and further be pleased to hold the same as
bad in law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
C. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondent ONGC
to consider the case of the petitioners and further be
pleased to direct the respondent to appoint the
petitioners on the respective A-II level posts pursuant
to the advertisement holding that the petitioners are
entitled and eligible for the post as they possess valid
certificate and also have undergone 3 years Diploma
Course as required.
D. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate
direction upon respondent ONGC directing not to
issue any appointment orders pursuant to the
advertisement or in the alternative respondent ONGC
may be directed to keep the respective posts vacant
for which the petitioners have applied for till the final
disposal of the present petition.
E. Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate
directions upon the certificate issuing State authority
to clarify the issue in detail in respect of the 3 years
Diploma Certificate issued to the petitioners is valid
one and the duration cannot have any baring in
respect of appointment of the petitioners.
F. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and
further orders that may be deemed fit, just and
proper in the facts and circumstances in the present
case."
3. Heard Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by
Ms.Vidhi J. Bhatt, learned counsel and Mr.Gaurav Mehta, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Dharitri Pancholi, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no.1 and 2,
Mr.Ajay Mehta, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and
Mr.Alkesh Shah, learned counsel for respondent no.6.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
4. Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by
Ms.Vidhi J. Bhatt, learned counsel and Mr.Gaurav Mehta, learned
counsel for the petitioners has submitted the same facts which
are narrated in the memo of petitions and submitted that the
action on the part of the respondent - authority is illegal and
arbitrary. Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel has submitted that
the minimum qualification is required for pursuing Diploma is
10th Standard and if any person wants to pursue Diploma after
clearing 12th Standard, the main mark-sheet shall be of 10 th
Standard and as per subjects taken by the person in 12 th
Standard, he shall be given the number of credits for the said
subjects and rest of the credits are to be acquired within two
years. According to Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel, the
petitioners are possessing valid three years Diploma Certificate
issued by the State of Gujarat and hence, they are entitled for
appointment on the respective posts, however, the respondents
have denied in giving appointment to the petitioners which is
not tenable in the eyes of law. Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel
has also invited the attention of this Court to the advertisement
issued by ONGC being No.3 of 2014 for recruitment to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
various posts on the establishment of the ONGC and one of the
posts was Assistant Technician (Production, Electrical). He has
submitted that the essential qualification for being considered for
the said posts as provided in the advertisement was three years
Diploma Course and should have certificate of competency of
Production / Electrical. He has submitted that in Diploma Course,
duration is not relevant criteria but to obtain credit numbers of
135 is only relevant criteria to get the Diploma Certificate which
is legal and valid as such certificate is issued by the State of
Gujarat. He has submitted that the respondent - ONGC has not
considered valid Diploma Certificate of the petitioners and,
therefore, the present petitions deserve to be allowed and the
impugned action of the respondents deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
4.1 According to Mr.Mehta, learned senior counsel, the
respondents should have considered the qualification of the
petitioners for the purpose of appointment to the post of
Assistant Technician (Production / Electrical).
5. In addition to the submissions made by Mr.Shalin Mehta,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
learned senior counsel, Mr.Gaurav Mehta, learned counsel has
submitted that the respondent - AICTE is parental body of the
Technical Education for Technical Examination Board, who issued
clarificatory letters wherein AICTE has specifically mentioned
that though the Diploma Course is of three years and six
semesters and total marks is 135 but diploma is persuaded by
the students after completion of the SCC / HSC. He has
submitted that in case of HSC, the exemption of six subjects and
corresponding 14 grades was granted to the students who are
persuading the diploma after 12th Standard, so the respondent
emphasized that since they have got an exemption for six
subjects and getting 14 grades, they did not persuade the study
for three years and to appear in all six semester examination.
6. The said contention of the petitioners was denied by the
respondents by filing affidavit-in-reply.
7. The present petitions have been vehemently opposed by
Mr.Ajay Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
ONGC. He has submitted that indisputably, the petitioners do not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
possess the requisite qualifications for being appointed to the
post of Assistant Technician. Mr.Mehta, learned counsel has
relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Mrs. Radhamani,
Chief Manager (HR). The relevant paragraphs of the said reply
reads as under:-
"It is humbly submitted that the present petition is filed by
the petitioner inter alia praying that the petitioner is
considered for appointment to A-II Level pursuant to an
advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation. It is
humbly submitted that the recruitment process had
commenced before substantially long period of time and
the interviews for recruitment of persons were completed
and result thereof was declared on 15th May 2016. Pursuant
thereto various candidates have already been appointed to
various posts many of whom have also joined. I say and
submit that in the circumstances, the present petition has
become infructuous and may therefore be dismissed. The
afore referred is without prejudice to what is submitted
hereinbelow inter alia to the effect that the petitioners do
not possess the qualification prescribed in the
advertisement and hence were not eligible for
consideration.
At the outset, the present petition is wholly untenable in as
much as the petitioners seek to challenge the qualification
prescribed by the respondent corporation for recruitment of
persons. I say and submit that prescription of educational
qualification for recruitment in service is a matter solely
within the prerogative of the appointing authority and the
same is not justifiable. I say and submit that the
educational qualification are provided for in all categories
of direct recruitment and there is no question of the same
being modified / relaxed to suit a particular individual. The
advertisement specifically required the candidate to have
three years diploma in Mechanical / Electrical Engineering
(six semester mark sheet is essential for 3 years diploma)
and it was essential qualification that the candidate should
possess six semester mark sheets as per the essential
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
qualification of advertisement. Undisputedly the petitioners
do not possess the same and none of them have produced
six semester mark sheets at the time of physical
verification which was essential. The petitioners were fully
aware of it and have accepted the same while submitting
the application. Therefore, now the petitioners cannot
contend that the petitioners are entitle to be considered for
appointment though undisputedly they do not possess six
semester mark sheet which was an essential prescription in
the advertisement. Therefore, the present petition is
untenable and deserves to be dismissed.
I say and submit that the petitioners have deliberately
given false information while submitting their application
online. They have in their online application stated that
they have a three year diploma whereas actually they do
not have the same. Had the petitioners not given the false
information their application would not have been
processed further and they would not even have been able
to participate in the written test as they do not possess six
semester mark sheet for 3 years diploma. Since the
petitioners are guilty of giving incorrect information not as
per prescription while submitting their online application
they are not entitled to any relief much less equitable relief.
Hence, present petition therefore deserves to be dismissed
on this ground alone.
The respondent corporation employs persons based on
fixed qualification and there is no question of the same
being altered / modified. I say and submit that the
education qualification prescribed in the various disciplines
is also as per relevant recruitment rules of the corporation
and in this case there is no question of the same being
considered on petitioners plea that he possesses three
years diploma infact he lacks the essential conditions of
three years diploma consisting of six semesters mark
sheets. It is pertinent to note that in the advertisement
itself it is mentioned in the essential qualification clause
1.3(ii) that diploma should be in the prescribed discipline as
mentioned in the essential qualification, no e equivalency
will be acceptable. The petitioners though aware of it
participated in selection process on a false premise.
Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief
whatsoever claimed in the present petition.
The advertisement specifically required the applicant to
have a three years diploma with six semester mark sheets
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
for being considered and since undisputedly petitioners do
not have six semester mark sheets are directed to be
considered there would be a reverse discrimination and the
respondent corporation would be flooded with litigation and
the entire recruitment process would come to a grinding
halt as there are other candidates also who would be
similarly situated but who have not applied as they did not
possess six semester mark sheets of three years diploma.
Since various persons who did not have six semester mark
sheets of three years diploma, considering the prescription
in the advertisement, have not participated in the
recruitment process whereas the petitioners by
misrepresentation have participated therein which cannot
be permitted. The petitioner therefore deserves to be
dismissed.
The petitioners have both applied for the post of Assistant
Rigman (Drilling) and the interviews for all eligible
candidates who had applied for the said post have been
completed on 12.03.2016. I say and submit that there is no
question of the petitioners being interviewed even
otherwise. This is without prejudice to the respondent
corporation's contention that the petitioners do not process
the requisite qualification for being considered. The petition
therefore also deserves to be dismissed.
It is submitted that identical petition was filed by the
another candidates by filing the writ petition being Special
Civil Application No.5836 of 2015 before this Hon'ble Court
and the Hon'ble Court vide its judgment and order dated 7 th
July, 2015 has been pleased to reject the petition filed by
the candidates.
As it is clearly mentioned in the advertisement that
candidates should have 3 years Diploma in Electrical
Engineering with six semester mark sheet, as such
candidates who were having 3 years Diploma in Mechanical
/ Electrical Engineering after 10th have not applied for the
post of A-II level and therefore at this stage the request of
the petitioners cannot be considered as it will tantamount
to discrimination to the candidates having 3 years Diploma
in Electrical Engineering who did not apply because they
did not possess the six semester mark sheets.
It can be concluded from the above that the petitioners
were not having 3 years Diploma in Electrical Engineering
with six semester mark sheet which is essential
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
qualification as per the advertisement and hence they were
rightly not considered after the physical verification of
documents.
With reference to paragraph No.3.2, it is a matter recorded
that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are working with ONGC as
tenure based field operators. It is however required to be
noted that the two recruitment exercises are independent
of each other with different eligibility criteria for tenure
based recruitment and regular recruitment which is in
question in the present petition. As far as tenure based
filed operators are concerned, the only requirement was
High School ( Class X ) pass with ITI in Fitting / Diesel /
Turner / Machining / Welding Trade or Diploma in
Mechanical / Production Engineering whereas as far as the
present recruitment is concerned, the essential
qualification is 3 years' Diploma in Mechanical / Chemical /
Petroleum Engineering and in cae of Assistant Technician
(Electrical), 3 years' Diploma in Electrical Engineering with
a valid certificate of competence as Electrical Supervisor.
Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that as far as tenure
based recruitment was concerned, there was no necessity
of a three years' Diploma whereas for regular recruitment,
it was clearly mentioned that the candidate should possess
three years' Diploma with six semester mark sheets in the
concerned discipline. The contents of paragraph No.3.2 are
therefore denied.
With reference to paragraph No.3.5, it is a matter record
that the petitioner No.2, 3 and 4 who were present at the
time of personal interview submitted relevant documents
which, on verification, it was found that they did not
possess the essential qualification as specified in clause 1.3
of the advertisement under the heading "Important Note of
Essential Qualification". The petitioner No.1 was
interviewed in the year 2015 against advertisement
No.03/2014 for the post of Assistant Rigman (Drilling). After
completion of personal interviews, the qualifications of all
the candidates were re-verified and the candidates who
had not submitted all the qualification certificates were
called for re-verification of the qualification certificates.
Therefore, the petitioner No.1 was also called to verify the
documents and on re-verification, it was found that the
petitioner did not possess the three years' diploma and
hence, he was not considered for selection at that time
also. Contents of this paragraph are denied."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
8. The present petitions have also been opposed by Mr.Alkesh
Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - AICTE.
Mr.Shah, learned counsel has relied upon the contents of the
affidavit-in-reply filed by Dr. C. S. Verma, Regional Officer,
Central Region Office, All India Council for Technical Education.
He has submitted that the present petitions deserve to be
dismissed.
9. Mr.Chetan Pandya, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in Special Civil Application No.13341 of 2017 has
submitted that since the petitioners have completed requisite
qualification by completing the Diploma Course and obtained
degree of Diploma from the Technician Examination Board, State
of Gujarat, therefore, the case of the petitioners can be
considered.
10. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed on
behalf of the respective parties and has gone through the
material produced on record. It appears from the record that as
per the advertisement No.3 of 2014 (R&P), the petitioners have
applied for the post of Assistant Technician and the essential
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
qualification is required for the post of Assistant Technician
(Electrical) is three years Diploma in Electrical Engineering; for
Assistant Technician (Mechanical) is three years Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering and for Assistant Technician (Production)
is three years Diploma in Mechanical / Chemical / Petroleum
Engineering. The important notes for essential qualification was
also mentioned in the said advertisement where the respondent
- ONGC has specifically mentioned that (i) Diploma should be
recognized by AICTE and should be minimum three years
duration (ii) Diploma should be in the prescribed discipline as
mentioned in the essential qualification (no equivalency will be
acceptable). That the petitioners of Special Civil Application
No.7625 of 2016 have completed their Diploma Course and
obtained the degree by required grade as per the syllables. It is
the case of the petitioners that since all the candidates have
done their diploma after completion of 12 th Standard and,
therefore, the duration of Diploma Course for the petitioners are
of two years as they cleared 12 th Standard and for the first year
they got required grades and after completion of three years of
diploma, the petitioners got degree certificate of diploma after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
getting 135 grades for all semesters. It is also the case of the
petitioners that though they have got required qualification of
diploma and obtained required grades from their respective
streams, however, respondent - ONGC has not considered for
the post of Assistant Technician as per the advertisement.
However, similarly situated persons to the petitioners have been
considered for the post of Assistant Technician and offered
appointment after completion of necessary formalities of clearing
examination and after clearing the personal interviews and,
therefore, the action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary
and illegal. The petitioners have referred to and relied upon
unreported decision dated 25.09.2017 of this Court (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohinder Pal) rendered in Special Civil
Application No.20714 of 2015.
11. In view of aforesaid order, the petitioners have prayed to
allow the petitions and they are similarly situated to the persons
whose cases have been considered by the respondent - ONGC.
12. As against that, the respondents have opposed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
petitions by filing affidavit-in-reply and raised an objection with
regard to the fact that the petitioners are not having necessary
qualification as prescribed and mentioned in the advertisement
and, therefore, their case may not be considered. The respective
respondents have denied that there is no discriminatory
treatment given to the petitioners and along with the reply, the
respondents have produced the order passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.5836 of 2016 and urged that since
the Court has taken a view and allowed the petition which was
subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal, against which one review petition came to
be filed by respondents, which was disposed of and, therefore,
the present petitions deserve to be dismissed.
13. Whether the petitioners fulfill criteria of diploma, whether
the petitioners have completed two years or whether the
petitioners have completed three years and if completed, they
are acquainted with the persons who have completed diploma in
three years in six semester mark-sheet or not.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the petitioners of
Special Civil Application No.15212 of 2017 had approached this
Court by way of preferring Special Civil Application No. 5836 of
2015 wherein this Court had occasioned to consider this very
controversy arising out of the advertisement No.3 of 2014 (R&P)
for this very post and after considering the submissions, this
Court has held and observed in para-7 which reads as under:-
"7. In my view, once it is found that the petitioners were
not fulfilling the requisite criteria regarding qualifications
as prescribed in the advertisement, they cannot seek any
appointment on the premise that although they had done
two years Diploma in Electrical Engineering, they should be
considered at par with those persons who had done their
three years Diploma in Electrical Engineering. None of the
fundamental rights or any legal right of the petitioners
could be said to have been infringed on account of the
action on the part of the respondents in not appointing so
as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of
its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution."
15. The Court has not satisfied with the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioners and dismissed the said
petition. Against the dismissal order, Letters Patent Appeal
No.587 of 2016 was preferred which came to be dismissed by
the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.07.2016. In
the Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
observed in para - 7 and 8 as under:-
"7. Thus, the respondent - ONGC has specifically stated in
the advertisement with regard to aforesaid aspect. It is for
the employer to prescribe essential qualification for a
particular post. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has
passed Diploma within two years. The only defence of the
petitioner is that because of certain credits given to him as
per the rules framed by the Government, he got such
credits and therefore completed Diploma within a period of
two years. However, such defence is not required to be
accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present
case because the respondent - ONGC specifically wants
Diploma recognized by AICTE and of minimum 3 years
duration. Thus, when the petitioner is not having required
qualification of Diploma of minimum 3 years duration, we
are of the opinion that respondent - ONGC has not
committed any illegality while rejecting the candidature of
the petitioner and learned Single Judge has also not
committed any error while dismissing the petition.
However, it is clarified that where the essential qualification
for the concerned post is Diploma in Electrical Engineering
(without specifying period of 3 years Diploma) it is always
open for the petitioner to submit an application and as and
when such application is given it is for the authority to
consider the same with their rules and regulations and their
requirements. This decision is rendered on the basis of the
facts of the present case.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is devoid
of any merits and accordingly it is dismissed."
16. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court confirmed
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. That again, the
petitioners approached the very Division Bench of this Court by
preferring review application being Misc. Civil Application
No.2287 of 2016 and while dealing with the review petition
preferred by the petitioners, the Division Bench vide order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
23.09.2016 has held and observed in para-5 as under:-
"5. However, once again, it is clarified that the aforesaid
order was passed in the facts and circumstances of the
present case and that the same will not preclude the
applicant to contend before the appropriate authority or
before any Court of law that the Diploma Course
completed by him was of Three Years' duration and while
doing so, the order passed by the learned single Judge in
the present case as well as the order passed by this Court
dated 18.07.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No.587 of 2016
will not in the way of the present applicant. The issue as to
whether Diploma held by the applicant can be considered
as 3 Years' Course is kept open and liberty is granted to
the applicant to agitate the said issue before the
appropriate authority / Court of law, as observed
hereinabove."
17. In view of the said order, the petitioners have referred to
and relied upon unreported decision dated 25.09.2017 of this
Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohinder Pal) rendered in
Special Civil Application No.20714 of 2015 wherein this Court
has held and observed in para-15 and 16 as under:-
"15. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to
the aforementioned decision of Kiritkumar Dahyabhai Patel
V/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and 1. This
Court has gone through this decision. It will be relevant to
note here that the petitioners of this case were having
diploma which was completed within a period of two years.
It is not clear from this judgment, whether the petitioners in
that case were having higher qualification like the present
petitioner. The case relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondents further distinguishable as the present
petitioner has cleared the written examination as well as
interview. The certificates possessed by the petitioner have
been scrutinized by the respondents and thereafter,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
appointment letter is also issued to him. So the case of the
present petitioner is on much much better footing then that
of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is
allowed. The petitioner is found eligible for the post for
which appointment letter was issued to him. The petitioner
will be issued fresh appointment in the next available
vacancy of the Assistant Technician (Electronics) with the
respondents. With this direction, this petition stands
disposed of. Direct service is permitted."
18. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
counsel appearing for the respective parties and also gone
through the impugned order/s passed by the authorities and the
orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the
opinion that the advertisement was published for the year 2014
and, thereafter, respondent - ONGC has further issued
advertisement for another year and now after seven years, this
Court is of the opinion that the submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners more particularly when the
findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by
the Division Bench of this Court whereby the very advertisement
and the controversy involved in the present petition is already
decided by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court and even in review petition also, this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
court has not disturbed the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the no
interference is required to be called for.
19. The petitioner/s of Special Civil Application No.15212 of
2017 had already approached this Court by way of preferring
Special Civil Application No.5836 of 2015 which came to be
decided and disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
against which the petitioner/s had preferred Letters Patent
Appeal and, thereafter, review petition and, therefore, the
petition being Special Civil Application No.15212 of 2017 is
required to be dismissed on the ground that earlier for very
prayers, the petitioners had approached by way of said writ
petition which came to be decided and no any liberty was
granted to the petitioners and, therefore, considering the
principle of res judicata, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.
20. In my view, once it is found that the petitioners were not
fulfilling the requisite criteria regarding qualifications as
prescribed in the advertisement, they cannot seek any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7625/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2024
undefined
appointment on the premise that although they had done two
years Diploma in Mechanical / Electrical Engineering, they should
be considered at par with those persons who had done their
three years Diploma in Mechanical / Electrical Engineering. None
of the fundamental rights or any legal right of the petitioners
could be said to have been infringed on account of the action on
the part of the respondents in not appointing so as to warrant
any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
21. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petitions
deserves to the dismissed and accordingly, the petitions are
dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand
vacated forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
