Kalendra Kumar Son Of Yogendra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 585 Jhar

                                      1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         W. P. (S) No. 2223 of 2014

     Kalendra Kumar son of Yogendra Nath Ram, resident of village +
     P.O. Gutgora, P.S. & District-Khunti, Jharkhand      .......Petitioner
                              Vs.
     1. The State of Jharkhand
     2. The Principal Secretary, Labour Employment and Training
     Department, Government of Jharkhand, 204, Nepal House Secretariat,
     P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi- 834002
     3. The Director, Labour Employment and Training Department,
     Government of Jharkhand, 204, Nepal House Secretariat, P.O. & P.S.
     Doranda, District Ranchi-834002.                ........Respondents

     For the Appellant         :      Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
     For the Respondent        :      Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP-III

                         PRESENT
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

C.A.V. ON 17.12.2021                  DELIVERED ON          03 /02 /2023

Ratnaker Bhengra,J:      This writ petition was ordered to be heard along

with WP(S) No. 1032 of 2014, as per order of this court dated 29.09.2015.

2. In the present writ petition petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter No. 179, dated 16.02.2014 (Annexure-8) issued by respondent no. 2 wherein, it has been intimated to the petitioner that petitioner has passed from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, which is not recognized from SCVT/NCVT and hence petitioner's appointment to the post of Fitter (Anudeshak) cannot be considered. Further prayer has been made for direction commanding upon the respondent no. 2 to appoint the petitioner as a Fitter (Anudeshak) from the date on which persons, ranked below to the petitioner in the merit list were appointed as a Fitter ( Anudeshak).

3. The factual background of the case is that respondents- authorities published an Advertisement No. 50 dated 08.09.2009 for appointment in different posts under the respondent no. 2. At serial no. 2 of the said advertisement, 55 posts were advertised for the post

of Fitter (Anudeshak) or Fitter instructor. Petitioner had applied for the post of Fitter (Anudeshak) alongwith his documents including the educational certificates, experience certificate and other certificates as per stipulations made in the said advertisement. Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board was the authority to hold the examination. After scrutiny of the application forms, petitioner's application was found to be in accordance with the requirements as envisaged in the advertisement and he was called for appearing at the examination, which was conducted by the said Examination Board on 18.07.2010. Petitioner appeared in the said examination and results were published on 20th October, 2010 in which petitioner secured CML Rank-25. Petitioner on the basis of his rank was called for counseling by the competent authorities vide letter dated 26.11.2010. The further case of the petitioner is that the Director, Labour Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, issued a letter on 24.01.2013(Annexure-6) and asked about the experience of the petitioner, so that his candidature can be considered. Thereafter, by letter dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure-7) Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Ltd., issued a letter that petitioner is working in his company since 18.02.2002 and continuing his job till date. Thereafter, vide letter dated 16.02.2014 (Annexure-8) respondent no.2 Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training, communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner had passed from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat which is not recognised by SCVT/NCVT and hence, petitioner's appointment to the post of Fitter (Anudeshak) cannot be considered. Hence, this writ petition.

ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari submits that the petitioner Kalendra Kumar had applied for the post of Fitter[Anudeshak],appearing at Sl.No. 2 pursuant to the Advertisement no. 50 dated 08-09-2009. The result of the petitioner was published on 20.10.2010, in which petitioner secured CML Rank- 25, but, candidates ranked below to the petitioner in the merit list were appointed and the petitioner was not appointed. Learned

Counsel then referred to the annexure-8 of the writ petition, which is a letter dated 16.02.2014, issued by the respondent no.2 Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand, and submitted that in the aforesaid letter in an arbitrary manner it was communicated to the petitioner that petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Fitter [Anudeshak] cannot be considered as petitioner has passed from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, which is not recognized by SCVT/NCVT. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in W.P.(S) No. 1032 of 2014, the petitioner therein Moti Shankar Mahato, and in the case in hand the petitioner Kalendra Kumar, have passed out from the same Institute, but, in the case of Moti Shankar Mahato, respondents are stating that Moti Shankar Mahato's certificate is recognized by SCVT, but, in present writ petition, respondents are saying that petitioner Kalendra Kumar, certificate is not recognized by SCVT. Hence, respondents are taking two different stands in two different cases regarding the same institute. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to page 33 of the writ petition, which is certificate of the petitioner Kalendra Kumar from Technical Examinations Board, Gujarat State, and submitted that in W.P.(S) No. 1032 of 2014, the same respondents have filed counter affidavit and had stated the same institute is recognized by SCVT but, in the case in hand respondents are saying that the institute is not recognized by SCVT. Learned counsel, further referred to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the respondent regarding maximum marks in trade test conducted by both NCVT and SCVT in State of Jharkhand is for total 700 marks and total marks conducted by Technical Examination Board, Gujarat is only 600 marks, and submitted that this criteria about maximum marks was not in the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgments passed by this court in case of WP(S) No. 5449 of 2015 with other analogous cases and submitted that on the basis of this judgments several candidates have been given appointment.

ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENTS

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State, Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, submitted that the petitioner is an ITI pass from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, which is not recognized either by SCVT or by NCVT. As per NCVT, All India Trade Test is being conducted for a total of 700 marks and as per SCVT in the State of Jharkhand also the same is being conducted for a total of 700 marks, based on the pattern adopted by NCVT. But, in the case of petitioner, the syllabus and total marks for conducting the test by Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, is 600 marks, which is different from that of NCVT, which is evident from the certificate annexed as Annexure- 2 of the writ petition. Thus, the case of the petitioner was not considered because the Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, is not conducting the test based on the pattern adopted by NCVT/SCVT. Regarding the appointment of candidates ranked in the merit list below the petitioner being appointed but, the appointment of the petitioner was rejected, learned counsel submitted that when the turn of the petitioner came as per the roster prepared by the Department, petitioner's case could not be considered because his ITI certificate from the Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, was not recognized by NCVT/SCVT. Learned counsel further submitted that there are two parts of the advertisement, one is to appear and pass the examination and second is verification of certificates etc. and both the parts are necessary for appointment. In the present case, the petitioner has only qualified the Fitter exam but has been rejected in the verification part because the certificate obtained by the petitioner from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat is not approved by NCVT/SCVT and therefore, respondent has rejected his candidature for appointment by stating the reason vide letter dated 16.02.2014 (Annexure-8). Learned counsel further submitted that the certificate possessed by the petitioner is merely a "certificate course in Fitter" while the certificate attached by the petitioner is not in consonance with the certificate issued by the Centre or State i.e. NCVT or SCVT. The appointments in ITI's are done as per the norms prescribed by Ministry of Labour Government of India and the petitioner's

appointment has not been considered as his qualification does not confirm to the norms prescribed by Government of India.

FINDINGS

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. Respondent had issued Advertisement No. 50 dated 08.09.2009 and petitioner Kalendra Kumar pursuant to the said advertisement had applied for the post of Fitter (Anudeshak) or Fitter Instructor appearing at serial no.2 of the said advertisement. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 16.02.2014 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondent no.-2 Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment and Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby his appointment to the post of Fitter Instructor was declined on the ground that petitioner has passed from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, which is not recognized from SCVT/NCVT.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has obtained Industrial Training Certificate from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat and the same is recognized by the State of Gujarat and respondent cannot reject the petitioner's appointment to the post of Fitter Instructor on the ground that petitioner's Institute is not approved from SCVT/NCVT. On the other hand respondents have stated that certificate of I.T.I., obtained by the petitioner is not recognized by SCVT/NCVT and so, petitioner does not fulfill the condition as stipulated in the advertisement and hence, petitioner's candidature for the appointment to the post of Fitter Instructor was not considered by the respondent. Hence, the issue before this court is whether recognition by SCVT/NCVT was also one of condition for appointment.

8. In the case in hand petitioner had applied for the post of Fitter Instructor appearing at SL.No.-2 of the advertisement and educational qualification and experience for the post from serial no.1 to 33 were as follows-

"शशैक्षणणिक ययोग्यतत एवव अननुभव (क) क्रम सव. 1 सस 33 तक :-

i) प्रवसश कयोतत्तीणि,सवबवणधित O;olk; सस आई. टत्ती. आई. /णडिपयोमत / णडिगत्ती उतत्तीणिर, एवव ii) प्रणशक्षणि

अवणधि सणहित पतपाँच वरर कत अननुभव (मतन्यतत प्रतप औदयोणगिक प्रणतषतन सस अथवत रतज यत कसन सरकतर सस मतन्यतत प्रतप तकनत्तीकत्ती सवसथतन) नयोट:

1. आई. टत्ती. आई. उतत्तीणिर सस ततत्पयर हिशै णक रतज यत कसन सरकतर सस मतन्यतत प्रतप औधियोणगिक प्रणशक्षणि सवसथतन/कसन (रतषषत्तीय प्रमतणि पत / रतज स्तरत्तीय प्रमतणि पत / रतषषत्तीय णशक्षनुतत प्रमतणि पत/सत्ती.टत्ती. आई./ए.टत्ती.आई. इततणद)

2. आई. टत्ती. आई. /णडिपयोमत / णडिगत्ती कत्ती अध्ययन / प्रणशक्षणि अवणधि कत्ती गिणिनत अननुभव कस रूप ममें कत्ती जतयसगित्ती।"

Hence, as per advertisement apart from experience requirement, required qualification for the post is mentioned in column (क) i) which is matric and ITI /Diploma/Degree pass from relevant trade i.e. in case of petitioner relevant trade is Fitter. Further, in note no.1 appended to column (क) i), pertaining to the post from serial no. 1 to 33, it is noted that ITI pass means Industrial Training Institute/Centre recognized by State or Central Government and in bracket, it is noted about requirement of National certificate/State level certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate/CTI/ATI etc. In the case in hand petitioner is claiming his appointment to the post of Fitter Instructor on the strength of his I.T.I., pass certificate in Fitter from Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, and to this extent petitioner has been able to fulfill the requirement in the advertisement mentioned in column (क) i). But, petitioner has not been able to fulfill the condition of note no.1 appended to column (क) i) which is recognition of his Institute or Centre from National certificate/State level certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate/CTI/ATI etc. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that his Institute, from where he completed his certificate course in Fitter is recognized by National certificate/State level certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate/CTI/ATI etc., i.e. in the case in hand either from SCVT or NCVT. This court by order dated 29.09.2015, had ordered the petitioner to file rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent but, petitioner did not file any rejoinder to prove his case.

9. Petitioner's argument that since the certificate is issued from the Technical Examination Board, Gujarat, hence the certificate itself, is the proof that Institute is recognized by the State of Gujarat and hence SCVT, is not tenable. Petitioner has not been able to show any documentation as to recognition of his Institute from SCVT,

Gujarat. Further, the case of WP(S) No. 5449 of 2015 (supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the case in hand as in that case issue of non-appointment of the petitioners on the lapse of the panel after one year was in question where as in the case in hand issue relates to eligibility criteria in relevant trade i.e. of Fitter.

10. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

( Ratnaker Bhengra,J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 03 /02 /2023 Sharda/NAFR