Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4569 of 2017 Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel in support of the petition and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioners were appointed on the post of Instructor in the discipline of Machinist (Grinder) pursuant to separate orders dated 13 November 2016. These appointments were cancelled pursuant to the orders impugned dated 18 January 2017. The respondents take the view that none of the petitioners held the certificate in one year Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) in the relevant trade and were therefore, not entitled to be appointed.
The issue itself arises since according to the petitioners they hold a certificate of CITS Machinist and have been non-suited principally on the ground that this certificate is not with respect to the discipline of Machinist (Grinder). Sri Khare learned Senior Counsel has assailed the orders impugned firstly on the ground that they came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. According to Sri Khare, the orders clearly visit the petitioners with grave civil consequences and could not have been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice. Sri Khare has then drawn the attention of the Court to the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Rules 2014 to submit that the certificate of CITS was a preferential qualification and that none of the petitioners were found to be lacking the minimum eligibility as set forth in the Appendix to these rules.
Reliance has further been placed on a response to an RTI application made by one of the petitioners on 26 December 2013 in terms of which the authority in the Department of the Union Government has proceeded to hold that the CITS certificate in the discipline of Machinist (Grinder) was sufficient to enable the petitioners to seek appointment on the concerned post.
Learned Standing Counsel has referred to Rule 9 of the 2014 Rules to submit that the petitioners were obliged to possess the technical qualifications as set forth in column 4 of the Appendix as well as the preferential qualifications as mentioned in Column 5 thereof. Stress has been laid on the language employed in Column 5 to submit that the certificate under CITS was required to be in the relevant trade and that merely because the petitioners held CITS certificates in the discipline of Machinist, the same would not entitle them to appointment.
Having considered the rival submissions, the Court notes that there is no dispute that the impugned orders came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The order on its plain terms and impact does visit the petitioners with grave and serious civil consequences. It was therefore, incumbent upon the respondents to place the petitioners on notice of the proposed action. More importantly what emerges from the above discussion is that the respondents have failed to consider the defence which could have been proffered namely of the CITS certificate in the relevant trade being only a preferential qualification and not an essential prerequisite. The Court further notes that Rule 9 carries to it a proviso which postulates that in case a candidate does not possess the preferential qualification as prescribed for different trades, he still obtains a right to be considered for selection and if selected is statutorily granted time as per Rule 17(3) to acquire the said qualification.
These grounds and aspects would clearly merit the matter being remitted to the concerned respondent for taking a decision afresh.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 18 January 2017 are hereby quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remanded to the second respondent for decision afresh and in light of the observations made hereinabove.
The consequential orders dated 19 January 2017 and 20 January 2017 shall also consequently stand set aside.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 faraz