Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pushpender Kumar vs Himachal Pradesh Subordinate ... on 10 July, 2024
Author: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:5002 )
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No : 5396 of 2020
Decided on : 10.07.2024
Pushpender Kumar.
........Petitioner.
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Selection Board and ors.
......Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Abhyendra Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for
respondent no.1.
: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent no.2.
: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents no. 3 to 6.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2024 20:34:34 :::CIS
2
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (oral)
.
In this CWPOA, the petitioner has assailed order dt.
11.10.2018, whereby the final result on the basis of direct recruitment
made by H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, H.P., for the
post of Refrigeration Plant Operator (on contract basis) was notified.
It records that petitioner was not selected for the said post reserved
2.
r to
for OBC (Unreserved) candidates, which post was lying vacant as per
said order.
The case of the petitioner was that he had passed
matriculation in 2006, 10+2 in 2008 and obtained ITI in the trade
of Refrigeration in the year 2013-2015. He also stated that he
belongs to BPL family which has low income. He has also produced
"Non Employment Certificate" and "Less Land Certificate". He
contends that he alongwith others had applied for the post of
Refrigeration Plant Operator notified by the Commission, and though
he possesses working experience as Refrigerating Technician and had
enclosed Annexure A-6 certificate in support thereof, his candidature
was rejected and respondents no. 3 to 6 have been appointed.
3. Reply is filed by the Staff Selection Commission
opposing the grant of relief to the petitioner by taking specific plea
that the petitioner does not have five years' experience after
acquisition of the ITI course certificate and therefore, his candidature
.
was not considered by the Commission.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash Vs. State of
Maharashtra and anr.2
5. In that case, the petitioner had applied for the said post
r to
and had acquired working experience of one year prior to the
acquisition of the basic qualification, which was diploma
Automobiles Engineering. When he was denied appointment, he
in
approached the Tribunal which rejected his claim on the basis of the
circular issued by the Government. The Supreme Court held that the
Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991 framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution show that a mere possession of the
working experience of at least one year in a reputed Automobile
Workshop as mentioned under Rule 3(c) is enough, and rule does not
make any distinction between acquisition of such experience
"prior to" or "after" the acquisition of the basic qualification. It,
therefore, set aside the order of the tribunal and declared that the
petitioner satisfies the requisite qualifications required by the rules
2 (1995) Sup3 SCC 332
and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for
appointment, if otherwise, satisfies the requisite qualifications,
.
including the marks obtained in the written test and the interview
already held.
6. This legal position is not disputed by the counsel for the
respondents.
7. Having regard to the said settled legal position, the view
taken by the Commission that the petitioner is ineligible
ground that he did not secure experience "after" acquiring the ITI
Course Certificate, cannot be sustained, since the cumulative
on the
experience secured by the petitioner before and after acquiring the
ITI Course Certificate as is evidenced by Annexures A-5 and A-6
(colly.) shows he had the said experience of five years as mandated
by the rules.
8. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed; the impugned
order (Annexure A-7), insofar as the petitioner was denied
appointment to the post of Refrigeration Plant Operator, OBC
(Unreserved) on contract basis, is set aside and respondents are
directed to appoint the petitioner in the said post in the vacancy in
that category indicated in the impugned order within six weeks.
9. The Writ petition, is accordingly, disposed of, so also the
.
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya)
10th July, 2024 Judge
(sushma) r
.
