Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Kumar vs State Of Punjab Etc on 6 August, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101103
CWP-16152-1998 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(203) CWP-16152-1998 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 06.08.2024
Rajiv Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 4 and 5.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the selection of
respondent No. 6 to the post of Workshop Instructor (Machinist).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent No.
4-Mehar Chand, Polytechnic, Jalandhar is an Aided Institution receiving 95%
grant-in-aid from the Government and had issued an Advertisement on
06.05.1998 (Annexure P-1) advertising the posts of Workshop Instructor
(Machinist). The petitioner applied for the post presuming that he is eligible.
As per the advertisement, along with the application form, the matriculation
certificate, detail mark sheet of the matriculation, passing of the Senior
Secondary Examination, the detail marks of the said examination, the
Diploma Certificate from the State/Board in Mechanical Engineering as well
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101103
CWP-16152-1998 (O&M)
as the Certificate of the Central Institute of Handtools, Jalandhar along with
the experience if any by the candidate was required.
3. The petitioner contends that whatever the requirements were
there to be filled up so as to compete for the post in question were fulfilled by
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the
petitioner fulfilled the qualifications, he was not called for the interview and
ultimately, respondent No. 6 has been selected by treating him the best
suitable out of the 11 candidates, who had applied for the post in question.
Learned counsel submits that ousting the petitioner from the zone of
consideration by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal, hence, the selection
of respondent No. 6 to the post of Workshop Instructor (Machinist) is liable
to be set-aside.
4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,
wherein, they have mentioned that the selection which has been made to the
post is upon merit of each candidate and has been done by a Selection
Committee consisting of 09 Members. It has been further mentioned that the
petitioner did not fulfill all the requisite of the Advertisement as, the
knowledge of Punjabi upto Matric was essential and the petitioner did not
attach any proof of having passed the Punjabi upto the Matric level, the
petitioner was treated ineligible keeping in view the terms and conditions of
the Advertisement.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101103
CWP-16152-1998 (O&M)
6. It is a conceded position that as per the Advertisement, the
following qualifications were prescribed to be eligible for the post in
question.
"Workshop Instructor (Machanist) :
Qualifications :
(a) Matriculate or its equivalent with Mathematics, Physics and
Chemistry.
(b) National Trade Certificate in the concerned trade.
OR
National Apprenticeship Certificate in the relevant trade.
OR
Apprenticeship Certificate in Industrial concern for a period not
less than 3 years.
OR
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering
(c) Not less than 3 years experience excluding Training period
for Central Training Institute trained and not less than 5 years
experience excluding the training period for Non-central
Training Institute trained.
Note :- (1) Knowledge of Punjabi upto Matric or its
equivalent standard is essential for all the
above said posts."
7. A bare perusal of the above would show that apart from the
technical qualifications required, as per the Note, the candidate should have
knowledge of Punjabi upto Matric level, which was essential to be eligible
for the post in question. The petitioner contends that he had attached the
passing of the Punjabi Certificate upto Matric level which is being denied by
the respondents in their reply.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101103
CWP-16152-1998 (O&M)
8. As per the reply, the petitioner had only attached three
certificates along with his resume and copy of the application filed by the
petitioner has been attached as Annexure R-1 which does not include proof of
passing of Punjabi upto Matric level. It is further on record that not only the
petitioner but there were other candidates, who did not attach the passing of
the Punjabi examination upto Matric level, whose claim was also rejected.
Keeping in view the said fact, it cannot be said that the petitioner could have
been treated eligible.
9. Even otherwise, the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not attach
the matriculation certificate of passing Punjabi is incorrect and rather the
same was attached, involves the disputed question of fact. As per the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2848 of
2021 titled as Shubhas Jain Vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others, decided on
20.07.2021, where the facts are disputed, the same should not be adjudicated
in the writ jurisdiction and the parties should be relegated to the civil dispute
before the civil Court. The relevant paragraph 26 of the said judgment is as
under :-
"26. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article226 of the
Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed
questions of fact. It is not for the High Court to make a
comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and
decide which one is acceptable."
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:101103
CWP-16152-1998 (O&M)
10. Keeping in view the fact that the selection was made about 25
years ago and respondent No. 6 is already working on the said post coupled
with the fact that the selection was made by duly constituted Selection
Committee by evaluating all the eligible candidates, no ground is made out
for any interference by this Court, at this stage.
11. Dismissed.
12. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
August 06, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
