Sujit Kumar Tiwari vs The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1922 Jhar

                                                       1



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   W.P. (S) No. 4202 of 2018
            Sujit Kumar Tiwari                             ...               Petitioner
                                         Vs.
            The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited
            & Ors.                                         ...               Respondents
                                       ----------

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK (Through: Video Conferencing) For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pathak, Advocate For the Resp.-JUVNL : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate

-----------

08/ 17.06.2021 Heard the parties.

Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has qualification of diploma in Electrical Engineering whereas as per the advertisement, requirement for appointment to the post of Switch Board Operator was just ITI Trained. Admittedly, the petitioner possessed the higher qualification than required in the advertisement in the same trade and as such, he was rightly selected for the said post and was asked to join, but illegally and arbitrary, the appointment of the petitioner was subsequently cancelled, which is not tenable in the eyes of law. He places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jyoti K.K. & Ors. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596. He further submits that petitioner was working on the said post for the last 10 years in the same department on contractual basis and as such, it cannot be said that he was not having experience of the said post.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-JUVNL vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification of ITI Trained as per the advertisement, his appointment was rightly cancelled by the respondents. He further submits that petitioner is a diploma holder and there is difference in ITI Trade and Diploma in a particular trade. The criteria of higher qualification was only for the post of Assistant Operator, which is at Sl. No.7 of the Advertisement and not for Sl. Nos.8 & 9 of the advertisement. The petitioner did not qualify for the post of Asst. Operator as he obtained less marks than the last selected candidate and for rest of the posts, he was not having requisite qualification as per the Advertisement.

Prima Facie, case has been made in favour of the petitioner and the balance of convenience lies in his favour. The respondents have very cleverly not mentioned

the cut off marks of Switch Operator in the counter-affidavit, for which the petitioner was appointed and subsequently, appointment was cancelled.

The respondent-JUVNL is directed to bring on record what the cut off marks for appointment to the post of Switch Board Operator, within a period of three weeks.

Put up this case on 19.07.2021 under the same heading.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) punit/-