Kerala High Court

Raj Kumar vs Cochin Shipyard Limited on 9 February, 2021

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.26750 OF 2020(P)


PETITIONER:-

                RAJ KUMAR
                AGED 27 YEARS
                S/O. PREM SINGH, LALGARHI, BITHANA POST, ALIIGARH
                DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH
                PIN 202 002 NOW RESIDING AT ROAD NO. 10E5/2,
                NEWTOWN, CHHOTODIGARHI, WEST BURDWAN DISTRICT,
                WEST BENGAL PIN 713 326

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.T.V.GEORGE
                SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)

RESPONDENTS:-

      1         COCHIN SHIPYARD LIMITED
                REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PERUMANOOR P.O,
                KERALA, COCHIN PIN 682 015

      2         CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND TRG),
                COCHIN SHIPYARD LTD, ADMIN
                PERUMANOOR P.O,
                COCHIN 682 015.

                R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
                R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-01-
2021, THE COURT ON 09-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.26750/2020
                                   2


                          ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                       W.P.(C).No.26750 of 2020
                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                Dated this the 9th day of February, 2021

                            JUDGMENT

1. The short issue which arises for consideration in this writ

petition is whether the petitioner was eligible for appointment

as Assistant Engineer (Structural) in the 1 st respondent on the

basis of Ext. P5 advertisement.

2. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 application for the post of

Assistant Engineer (Structural) in response to Ext.P5. The

qualifications provided for the post of Assistant Engineer

(Structural) in Ext.P5, specifically included 7 years experience

in structural fitting works preferably in a Shipyard/Dockyard

or heavy engineering company or Government Establishment,

out of which two years should be in a supervisory grade. The

petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 service certificate from the

Saksham Die Making and Die Casting Udyogik Sahkari Samiti

Ltd. to show supervisory experience. The learned counsel for

the petitioner contends that by an inadvertent mistake, he had W.P.(C).No.26750/2020

stated that he had worked as Supervisor in the establishment

from 01.02.2012 to 31.10.2013. It is stated that it was a non-

substantial and inconsequential mistake which should not

have been taken into account.

3. It is submitted that Ext.P10 result of the selection would show

that one post of Assistant Engineer (Structural) reserved for

OBC remains unfilled for want of suitable candidates.

Ext.P11, which shows the registration numbers of candidates

not shortlisted for selection with the reasons thereof, would

show that the petitioner's application was rejected for the

reason that he had less than 2 years of experience in

supervisory grade. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that he actually had 2 years experience in the

supervisory grade. Ext. P14 certificate dated 23.11.2020 is

produced in support of the above contention. It is further

submitted that even if it is admitted that the petitioner had

joined as a trainee, he had actually worked in the supervisory

cadre for the entire length of his employment, as evidenced

from Ext.P3 and that as such, his experience in the W.P.(C).No.26750/2020

supervisory capacity from 01.08.2011 to 31.10.2013 is liable

to be considered in accordance with law.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the

decision of this Court in Indian Rare Earths Ltd. v. John

[2013 (4) KLT 430] to contend that service rendered in a post

even as a trainee is liable to be taken note of, in the absence of

any specification that the appointment is as an apprentice.

Placing reliance on an earlier decision of a Division Bench of

this Court in Nandanan v. Jyothish Kumar [2004 (1) KLT

142], it is contented that it is only where the initial

appointment is specifically as a pre-service trainee that the

said period of service can be excluded.

5. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the

respondents. It is contented that the petitioner himself had

specifically stated in his application that he had only 1 year 8

months and 30 days of experience in the supervisory capacity.

This was borne out from Ext.P3 certificate as well, where his

designation on appointment is shown as Diploma Trainee and W.P.(C).No.26750/2020

his date of leaving is shown as 31.10.2013 and his designation

at the time of leaving is shown as Supervisor.

6. It is stated that the petitioner had joined as trainee and it was

only after an year of training that he was regularized. If the

regularization after one year is taken note of, the petitioner

would have only one year's experience in the supervisory

capacity. Ext.P14 produced by the petitioner would also show

that the petitioner's experience in the supervisory capacity

was only as stated in Ext.P3. It is further submitted that there

was only one vacancy in the OBC quota and out of the 10 OBC

candidates shortlisted, the petitioner was in the 7 th position in

the order of merit and that the candidature of all the 10

persons were rejected for want of required experience.

7. I have considered the contentions advanced. The notification

specifies that an applicant should have experience in a

supervisory capacity of at least 2 years. Petitioner in this

application has specifically stated that his experience in the

supervisory capacity was only from 01.02.2012 to 31.10.2013. W.P.(C).No.26750/2020

This falls short of the 2 years of supervisory experience

required. Ext.P3, which was admittedly a service certificate

produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions with

regard to experience would also show that the petitioner's

date of joining was 01.08.2011 and his designation on joining

was Diploma Trainee. As on the date of his leaving, that is, on

31.10.2013 his designation was 'Supervisor'. Ext.P14 is the

certificate issued on 23.11.2020. It states that the petitioner

joined duty of the Saksham Die Making and Die Casting

Udyogik Sahkari Samiti Ltd. on 01.08.2011. It is stated that

after the completion of the one year period, including six

months training, he was regularized in service and that he

continued in the post till 31.10.2013. Ext.P14 is seen dated

23.11.2020. The petitioner cannot rely on any certificate

issued post the selection to substantiate his claims of his

qualifications as per the notification. Even in case the

contention is accepted, that would not show that the petitioner

had experience in the supervisory capacity for the required

two years.

W.P.(C).No.26750/2020

8. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner with regard to the counting of the period of training

for qualifying service for the purpose of gratuity or promotion

have no application in the instant case, where the specific

requirement in Ext.P4 was for experience in a supervisory

capacity.

9. In the light of the application submitted by the petitioner and

Ext.P3 certificate, which was produced at the time of the

selection, the rejection of the petitioner's application on the

ground that he did not have the required experience in a

supervisory capacity cannot be said to be illegal.

The writ petition, therefore, fails. The same is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

sj W.P.(C).No.26750/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NON CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD 7/8/20

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD 24-09-2013 ISSUED BY VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE DTD 31-10-2013 ISSUED BY SAKSHAM DIE MAKING AND DIE CASTING UDYOGIKSAHKARISAMITI LTD TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT ISSUED BY STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD TO THE PETITIONER DTD 21-10-2013

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DTD 21-

08-2019 PUT OUT BY THE RESPONDENT-

COMPANY

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION DTD 30-

08-2019 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL) BEFORE THE RESPONDENT COMPANY

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER FOR OBJECTIVE TYPE TEST (PHASE-1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER FOR DESCRIPTIVE TYPE TEST (PHASE-II) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER FOR CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT W.P.(C).No.26750/2020

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF SELCT LIST DTD 17-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CIRCULAR DTD 17-10-2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P AND A)

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD 21-10-