SBCWP6571/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6571/1997 Suresh Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 25.02.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for petitioner Shri Krishna Verma, Additional Government Counsel and Shri Gajanand Manav, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with prayer that respondents be directed to consider his case for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Motor Vehicle). Petitioner was working with respondent Transport Department on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). According to the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (as amended vide Notification dated 12.04.1992), source of recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector (Motor Vehicle) is 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment. In so far as direct recruitment is concerned, SBCWP6571/1997 // 2 // eligibility for appointment is Diploma in Automobile Engineering (three years course) or Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the State Technical Education Board. However, eligibility for the purpose of promotion to that post is that a candidate substantively working as LDC in Transport Department must have possessed certificate course in Automobile Engineering from University/Institutions recognized by the State Government. Shri M.M. Ranjan, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that petitioner applied for study leaves of one year duration to undergo Certificate Course (Automobile Engineering) from Annamalai University and respondent Department granted him the leaves. Petitioner successfully completed Certificate Course in Automobile Technology in the year 1995. Petitioner has produced certificate and mark-sheets on the record. Learned counsel submitted that Annamalai University is established under the U.G.C. Act, 1956 and that as per Section 3 thereof, certificates issued thereby are automatically recognized for the purpose of employment. No separate order of recognition of such certificates is necessary. Learned counsel submitted that respondents have SBCWP6571/1997 // 3 // rejected candidature of petitioner on the basis of communication received from the Board of Technical Education for Rajasthan which confused the certificate course with Diploma and in said communication dated 13.02.1997 it is stated that Certificate Course obtained by petitioner was not recognized equivalent to Diploma in the recognition book of Professional & Technical Education of the Government of India, which is available with the Board of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jodhpur. Learned counsel further submitted that it was never the case of petitioner that he possessed Diploma and therefore there was no question of comparing the Certificate Course obtained by petitioner equivalent to Diploma. Learned counsel submitted that the Government of Rajasthan, in order to clarify this confusion, in its Department of Education (Group III), issued a Circular on 25.02.1992 clarifying that certificates of secondary education granted by Annamalai University shall be treated equivalent to one awarded by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. The name of Annamalai University is mentioned at No.20 of that order dated 25.02.1992. It is submitted that whichever University, having SBCWP6571/1997 // 4 // recognition under U.G.C., grants any certificate, that certificate has to be necessarily taken as recognized qualification even by the State Government. The petitioner therefore cannot be held ineligible for promotion. It is therefore prayed that writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to consider the case of petitioner soon after he produced the document making him eligible for grant of promotion. Shri Krishna Vemra, learned Additional Government Counsel for respondents, has opposed writ petition and submitted that the Circular/Order dated 25.02.1992 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, does not apply to the facts of present case. That Circular/order was issued in the context of secondary and higher secondary school certificates and it was provided that such certificates if granted by the Board of Secondary Education or University of the Various States under the enactments, would be treated as equivalent to secondary school certificates or higher secondary school certificate granted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. It is in that context the name of Annamalai University was mentioned at Serial No.20 and thereby equivalence is given SBCWP6571/1997 // 5 // to the matriculation examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, with those examinations conducted by Annamalai University. Mere mention of name of Annamalai University therein, cannot provide any basis to hold that Certificate Course of duration of one year in Automobile Engineering is to be treated equivalent to such certificate of duration of two years, training in the course whereof is imparted by different recognized Industrial Training Institutes in the State of Rajasthan. Learned counsel submitted that in the State of Rajasthan the ITI Certificate Course in Automobile Engineering is of 2 years whereas certificate obtained by petitioner is only of one year duration. In any case the Board of Technical Education for Rajasthan was the competent authority to throw light on this controversy and it vide its letter dated 13.02.1997 clarified that name of Annamalai University from where the certificate is obtained or even a Diploma granted by such University, does not find place in the recognition book of Professional & Technical Education Department of the Government of India, which is available with the Board of Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, SBCWP6571/1997 // 6 // Jodhpur. The learned counsel submitted that the recognition cannot be a matter of inference and has to be proved by positive evidence. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused material on record, I find that even though it may be a fact that petitioner was sanctioned leaves to undergo the certificate course of duration of one year in Automobile Engineering but that by itself does not mean that the certificate would automatically stand recognized by the Government of Rajasthan for employment. This issue has to be examined independently. When the respondents contend that it is not recognized either by the Board of Secondary Education or the Board of Technical Education of the Government of Rajasthan or even by the Government of India in its concerned Department, the certificate cannot be taken as recognized merely on the analogy of Circular/Order dated 25.02.1992 issued by the Government of Rajasthan in the context of the Secondary and Higher Secondary Examinations. Moreover the respondents have clearly brought out the distinction between the certificate obtained by petitioner of duration of one year whereas in the State of Rajasthan the SBCWP6571/1997 // 7 // certificate course in Automobile Engineering awarded by recognized Industrial Training Institutes is of two years duration. Therefore, even if it is accepted that the certificate was not correctly compared with the Diploma by the respondent, independently it may not be taken as comparable with the certificates awarded by the ITI in the State of Rajasthan. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//