Reserved on 23.2.2018 Delivered on 28.02.2018
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21288 of 2016 Petitioner :- Shivnandan Pachauri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sanehi Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Ojha,Ayank Mishra
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Ram Sanehi Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhinav Ojha, learned Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has approached this Court, praying for a direction to the respondents to permit him to participate in the interview for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the department of the respondents.
The brief of the case that the petitioner applied for direct recruitment being held by the Electricity Service Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the category of dependent of freedom fighter. After qualifying the examination, he was called for interview on 29.11.2015 at Electricity Training Institute, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, where he was stopped from participating on the ground that he has the qualification of B.Tech, when as per the advertisement, the requirement for the post of aforesaid was only a Diploma in Electrical Engineering. By the interim order dated 17.05.2016, this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for interview and Counter Affidavit was called from the respondents.
A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2, Electric Service Commission, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Mahanagar, Lucknow, stating that the interview for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) was scheduled between 18.11.2015 to 21.11.2015 and 27.11.2015 to 04.12.2015. Thereafter, the selection process has come to an end on 04.01.2016, when the final result was declared. The petitioner has given a wrong declaration in his application, where only 3 years Diploma Examination in Electrical Engineering was required and he had the qualification of B.Tech. Degree, therefore, he was not permitted in Interview. Further the interim order was granted to the petitioner on the basis of the order passed in Service Single No.6655 of 2016, Alok Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others, which has been finally dismissed by the Lucknow Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 02.05.2016. The copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure No.C.A.-2 to the Counter Affidavit.
The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani Vs. District & Session Judge, Nagpur, (2000) 2 SCC 606. In this case, the Apex Court, while considering the denial of call of interview to a candidate for the post of Peon, only on the ground that he has the qualification of High School when the Educational Qualification prescribed for the post was passing of 4th Vernacular standard and /or education upto 7th standard only, held that higher qualification possess by the candidate can not become a disadvantage for him and he should have been considered for interview. The Apex Court has further stated in paragraph no.21 of the aforesaid Judgment that this finding is confined to the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.
After hearing the rival contentions, it is to be stated that the qualification prescribed for a particular post is better left to those who are well equipped to determine such matters since their prescription in advertisement is dependent upon the nature of duties required from a particular post. It is settled law that the qualification prescribed under the relevant rules can not in any manner whittled down and different qualification can not be adopted as held by the Apex Court, in the case of State of Punjab & others Vs.Anita & others, (2003) 3 SCC 541. It has been held in paragraph no.10 of the Judgment as follows, “We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondent that B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to complete for the post. On behalf of the appellants. It is pointed out before us that Trained Teacher’s Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed. degree, the training imparted to teach students of classes above primary B.Ed. degree- holders, therefore, can not necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned, but we can not consider B.Ed. candidates, for the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies advertised as eligible.”
It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not possesses the qualification prescribed in the Advertisement for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). He admits possessing a higher qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering, which according to him pre supposes the possession of lower qualification of Diploma.
Therefore, the petitioner can not be granted any relief. The only relief claimed by him was direction to the respondents to permit him to participate in the interview for the post of Junior Engineer ( Electrical), which was granted to him by the interim order dated 17.05.2016 by this Court. As per paragraph no. 5 of the Counter Affidavit, the selection process was completed by the respondent no.2 on 04.12.2015 and results were declared on 04.01.2016 and the petitioner has not been able to rebut the same in his Rejoinder Affidavit. The writ petition has been filed after the selection in dispute has been finalized by the respondent no.2.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Aks