IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5859 of 2010 MRITUNJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM SUNDAR SINGH R/O VILL.- GOH GOLAPAR, P.S.- GOH, DISTT.- AURANGABAD VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, VISHWESHVARAIYA BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA, P.O.- VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA, P.O.- VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14 4. MEMBERS OF RE-SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE SECRETARY WITH CWJC NO.6157 OF 2010 1. SOHAN CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE BAKHORA CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE - SADISOCHAK, P.S & DISTRICT - JEHANABAD. 2. RAMA SIS MANJHI, S/O SRI RAMDEO MANJHI, R/O VILLAGE - KAMDEO BIGHA,P.O., P.S & DISTRICT - JEHANABAD. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, P.O VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, P.O VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA. 5. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA WITH CWJC NO.5854 OF 2010 1. SANJAY KUMAR ASHK @ SANJAY KUMAR S/O LATE SURYADEEP PRASAD SRIVASTAVA R/O MOHALLA- DHARAMPUR, TAJPUR ROAD, P.S.- TOWN, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VETERINARY COLLEGE, CAMPUS, PATNA 6. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE CAMPUS, PATNA 7. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE CAMPUS, PATNA WITH CWJC NO.5953 OF 2010 2 NELESH KUMAR @ NILESH KUMAR S/O SHRI NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD R/O MOH DHRUMPUR, EAST OF NEW B.ED. COLLEGE, P.O. KASHIPUR, P.S. SAMASTIPUR (MUFFASIL), DISTT-SAMASTIPUR VERSUS 1. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE RE-SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY WITH CWJC NO.6056 OF 2010 1. PANKAJ KUMAR S/O SHRI BIPIN SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.- DURGAPUR, P.S. AND DISTT.- KHAGARIA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR 2. BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14 3. SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14 WITH CWJC NO.6062 OF 2010 SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY S/O SRI SHIVA MUNI PANDEY R/O VILL.- CHILAHER, P.O.- INDAUR, DISTT.- BUXAR (BIHAR) VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AT- BIHAR VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.O.- BIHAR VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.S.- AIRPORT, PATNA 4. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AT & P.O.- BIHAR VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.S.- AIRPORT, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AT & P.O.- BIHAR VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.S.- AIRPORT, PATNA 6. THE RE-SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION UNDER THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, AT & P.O.- BIHAR VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.S.- AIRPORT, PATNA 7. THE CHAIRMAN, RE-SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION UNDER THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT, AT & P.O.- BIHAR VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.S.- AIRPORT, PATNA WITH CWJC NO.6159 OF 2010 1. RAJIV RANJAN , S/O SRI MANGAL SINGH, R/O VILLAGE & P.O - MUJRAR VIA - NOKHA , P.S. - NOKHA, DISTRICT - ROHTAS. 2. KAMAKHAYA NARAYAN SINGH, S/O SRI RAM CHANDRA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE - SHIVPUR, P.O - NOKHA , P.S. - NOKHA, DISTRICT - ROHTAS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3 2. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14. 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14. 4. THE EXAMINATION CONTROLLER, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14. WITH CWJC NO.5753 OF 2010 SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SUNDAR PRASAD SINGH, R/O SAVERA SADAN, ROAD NO.1, POSTAL PARK, P.S - KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT- PATNA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, VISHWESHVARAIYA BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA,P.O - VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA,P.O - VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14. 4. MEMBERS OF RE-SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE SECRETARY. WITH CWJC NO.5951 OF 2010 1. SANTOSH KUMAR @SANTOSH KR.SINGH S/O LATE RAM NAGINA SINGH R/O VILL & P.O.CHINTAMANPUR, P.S. PIPRA, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION P.O.VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION P.O. VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION P.O.VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA 5. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA WITH CWJC NO.6102 OF 2010 1. CHANDRA PRAKASH S/O SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR VERMA R/O MOH CHANDMARI EKWANA, P.S.MOTIHARI, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, POST VETERINARY COLLEGE DISTT-PATNA WITH CWJC NO.6209 OF 2010 SANJAY KUMAR TIGER, SON OF SHRI RAMJEE PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MANGALANAGAR, RAMCHANDRAPUR, BIHARSHARIF, POLICE STATION LAHERI, DISTRICT NALANDA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, VISHWESHVARAIYA BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA,P.O - VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA,P.O - VETENARY COLLEGE, PATNA-14. 4. MEMBERS OF RE-SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE SECRETARY. WITH CWJC NO.6240 OF 2010 SATYENDRA NARAYAN MISHRA, SON OF SHRI PHULENA MISHRA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BALUATAL, POLICE STATION MOTIHARI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, POST VETERINARY COLLEGE, DISTT-PATNA ********* 4 23/04/2010 The petitioners, in these batch cases, hoped to be appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors was lying vacant for a very long time. A writ application was filed and finally the State Government took a decision to begin the process of appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. There were 59 vacant posts against which 183 applications were received. The advertisement for the said purpose was published in the year 2007. After scrutiny of the applications, 09 applications were found to be valid whereas the rest 174 applications were rejected. The rejection of 174 applications led to flood of writ applications being filed before this Court which are CWJC No. 2371 of 2010 and its analogous cases. On 18.02.2010, this Court while considering the writ applications has observed that “miniscule number of 5 candidates who have been found to be called for the interview and the large scale finding of ineligibility, the Commission in all fairness proposes to re-scrutinize the applications including those nine who have been called for interview to take a fresh decision by a committee headed by the Secretary of the Commission and two Senior Officers from the Department of Transport and Personnel and then issue fresh interview calls to those who fulfil the conditions of the advertisement”. It was also ordered that after the scrutiny, the Commission will hold the interviews of eligible candidates on 12th April, 2010. On re-scrutiny, only 20 candidates were found eligible. The interviews began on 12th April, 2010 as directed by this Court. Being aggrieved by the re-scrutiny and the reasons for rejection, these cases have been filed challenging the reasons for rejecting the candidature of the persons who seek to be appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors. I shall, therefore, first deal with the reasons of rejection of the individual cases and then give finding regarding the facts of the case. CWJC NO. 6157 OF 2010 There are two petitioners in this case, namely, Sohan Choudhary and Rama Sis Manjhi. By 6 Annexure-4, the petitioner was found ineligible on the ground that in the certificate showing his experience, the words `repair, overhauling and inspection‟ has not been mentioned. The experience certificate is contained in Annexure-3 which shows that the petitioner was employee of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited since 11th January, 1999 as Junior Electrical Engineer. He joined in the maintenance wing on account of his being mechanical engineer with automobile elective paper. He was working with light & heavy vehicles both diesel and petrol. His work was with respect to all kinds of vehicles. The case of Rama Sis Manjhi will be considered later. CWJC NO. 5854 OF 2010 The petitioner was not found eligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector on the ground that the experience certificate does not mention the words `repairing, overhauling and inspection‟. The certificates of the petitioner are annexed to the application vide Annexure-8 series. The experience certificate issued by the Mithila Motors shows that the petitioner was working as an Automobile Service Engineer for the last eight years. It is said that he has sufficient knowledge of engine maintenance. CWJC NO. 5859 OF 2010 7 The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not include the word `repair‟ which has been mentioned in the advertisement. In the experience certificate, as contained in Annexure-4, it is mentioned that he was engaged in maintenance, overhauling and inspection of heavy carriers including the light vehicles. The second certificate granted by Motorkraft indicates that he worked as Supervisor and was engaged in the maintenance, supervising and inspection. CWJC NO. 5953 OF 2010 The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that his experience certificate does not contain the words `maintenance, overhauling and inspection‟ whereas the second certificate granted by Mithila Motors does not contain the words `maintenance and inspection‟ which was required by the advertisement. The certificate by Mithila Motors shows that the petitioner has experience in maintenance, overhauling and servicing whereas the certificate by Pebco Motors Limited shows that the petitioner was a Service Supervisor and has experience in maintenance work and managing of workshop activity for both diesel and petrol engines. CWJC NO. 6056 OF 2010 8 The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not contain the words `repair and inspection‟. On perusal of the experience certificate, it is apparent that the petitioner is involved in all types of mechanical as well as electrical works and overhauling of engine works in the shop. He was working as a Technical Supervisor in petrol and diesel light motor vehicles whereas the certificate granted by Enar Industries Enterprises shows that the petitioner was the Supervisor and involved in engine overhauling of TATA Motors, light and heavy commercial vehicles. CWJC NO. 6062 OF 2010 The candidature of this petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not contain the word `repair‟. The experience certificate shows that the petitioner had experience of inspection, overhauling of light and heavy motor vehicles, diesel and petrol including goods and passengers CWJC NO. 6159 OF 2010 The reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is that the experience certificate does not mention the word `overhauling‟. On perusal of the experience certificate issued by the Vishwakarma 9 Engineering Works, it appears that the petitioner has the required qualification as the petitioner has experience in repair, maintenance and inspection of all types of motor vehicles, whereas the certificate issued by the Prakash Petrol indicates that the petitioner has experience in repair, maintenance and inspection of all types of motor vehicles. CWJC NO. 5753 OF 2010 The petitioner‟s candidature has been rejected for the following reasons. (a) the certificate granted by the India Automobiles does not contain the fact that the petitioner has experience in overhauling; (b) the certificate granted by Nalanda Engineering Works similarly does not contain the word `overhauling‟; (c) the certificate granted by Karlo Automobiles (P) Limited does not contain the word `repair, inspection and overhauling‟; and (d) the certificate granted by Jagdamba Auto Sales (P) Ltd. does not contain the word `overhauling‟. The petitioner has annexed a number of certificates which shows that he has experience in repair, overhauling, inspection and maintenance by 10 Jagdamba Auto Sales (P) Ltd. working as a Supervisor by Maruti Automobiles, has experience in inspection, maintenance and has experience to work in repair & maintenance of suspension, steering, gear box, differential etc. In this case, I.A. No. 3365 of 2010 has been filed by one Partha Sarthi, praying that he should be permitted to intervene in this case. According to the intervenor, he is one of the successful candidates. It has been submitted on his behalf that apart from the interviews, the candidates should be tested for having knowledge of driving of light and heavy vehicles and the said driving test should be videographed. In the intervention petition, it has been mentioned that Rule 5 (c) of the Appointment Rules framed by the State Government clearly specify the necessity of driving license for the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The said driving test should be made essential part of the selection process. Undoubtedly, the Motor Vehicle Inspector are required to know driving. However, it is upto the State Government to frame the required qualifications for the purpose of selection. If the respondent wishes to conduct a driving test because it has certain doubts regarding the statement in „Prapatra-II, that the 11 candidates can drive a light/heavy vehicle, it would be open for t hem to do so. It is expected that the candidates would have the required qualification as they are required to produce driving license as per the advertisement. The I.A. NO. 3365 of 2010 is accordingly allowed in part. CWJC NO. 5951 OF 2010 On re-scrutiny, it has been found that the petitioner‟s experience certificate dealing with the heavy vehicles does not contain the word `overhauling and inspection‟ whereas the certificate granted by Lawly Sen & Co does not indicate that the petitioner has experience in inspection. The certificates have been annexed as Annesure-3 series. The certificate granted by Lawly Sen & Co. indicates that the petitioner has worked as a Supervisor for the period from January, 1998 to February, 2000 and had underwent training and was responsible for repair, maintenance, such as engine overhauling, repair and supervising of all diesel and petrol Mahindra range of vehicles. The certificate granted by Maurya Motors Limited indicates that the petitioner worked in the organization as a Workshop Trainee for the period March, 2000 to March, 2002 and had worked with TATA Heavy and Commercial vehicles and had 12 training in repair and maintenance whereas the certificate of Maurya Motors Limited dated 04.02.2010 indicates that the petitioner underwent in the repair and maintenance work of engine and other major aggregates (repair, overhauling and inspection) of TATA Heavy Commercial vehicles. CWJC NO. 6102 OF 2010 The petitioner‟s candidature has been rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not contain the word inspection. The certificate granted to him which is also annexed in this application, suggests that the petitioner had work experience in inspection, overhauling and supervising of Heavy and Light vehicles. CWJC NO. 6209 OF 2010 On re-scrutiny, the petitioner‟s application was rejected on the ground that the certificate granted by Karlo Automobiles (P) Ltd. does not show the type of work that the petitioner had done while he was working as Floor Supervisor in the firm. The certificate granted by Minta Engineering Workshop indicates that the petitioner was the Incharge of maintenance of trucks & buses and was involved in the preparation, maintenance and inspection of steering, differential, suspension, gear box etc. 13 In this case, perhaps the certificate which shows that the petitioner is working as an Floor Supervisor in the company, does not indicate that he had actively participated in repair, maintenance, inspection, supervising and electrical work etc. of Heavy and Light vehicles. The second certificate granted by Minta indicates that the petitioner has experience in repairing, overhauling and inspection. CWJC NO. 6240 OF 2010 The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected as the experience certificate does not indicate that the petitioner had experience of inspection works. The experience certificate granted to him by Ajanta Automobiles indicates that the petitioner has experience in Light and Heavy vehicles and had worked for preparing, overhauling and supervision of such vehicle. DISCUSSION AND ORDER The details with respect to the facts of each of the petitioners as have been given above indicates the reasons why on re-scrutiny also, the cases of the petitioners had been rejected. The facts are that an advertisement was published by the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna in the daily newspaper by which applications were called for the appointment on the 14 vacant posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. It is essential to refer to the qualifications and requirements given in the advertisement as the same has become the subject matter of interpretation before this Court. The candidates should have passed the matriculation examination with Science conducted by Bihar School Examination Board or by Central Board of Secondary Education or any other recognized board/Council. The candidates should also have a certificate for diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering granted by the institute recognized by the Bihar State Board of Technical Education or any other technical institute or AICTE. The candidates were also required to have two years experience in case of Diploma in Automobile Engineering or five years in the case of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, whereas one year working experience was the requirement for the candidates who have Post Diploma in Automobile Engineering. The candidates would be required to have experience with working in Light and Heavy motor vehicles, those run by diesel and petrol (including passenger and transport vehicles). The important fact which has become the centre point of the dispute is that the experience certificate required to be produced by the candidates should contain the certain 15 criteria as required by the Advertisement. This Court is quoting only those parts of the Advertisement which are the subject matter of rejection of the candidature of the applicants by the re-constituted Committee of the Commission. (d) 'kS{kf.kd ,oa rduhdh ;ksX;rk %(i) fcgkj fon~;ky; ijh{kk lfefr }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kk esa foKku ds lkFk izosf’kdksRrh.kZ ;k lsUV~zy cksMZ vkWQ lsds.M~zh ,tqds’ku ;k vU; ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ifj"kn dh led{k ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZrk (ii) fcgkj jkT; rduhdh f’k{kk i"kZn ;k vU; fdlh jkT; ds rduhdh f’k{kk i"kZn ;k dsUnzh; rduhdh f’k{kk i"kZn ls ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls vkWVkseksckbZy vfHk;a=.k ;k ;kaf=d vfHk;a=.k esa rhu o"khZ; fMIyksek ijh{kk mRrh.kZ A ;fn vH;FkhZ rhu o"khZ; fMIyksek mRrh.kZ ugha gS rks os ;ksX; ugha ekus tk;saxs A Hkys gh os mPp ;ksX;rk/kkjh gksa A jkT; rduhdh f’k{kk i"kZn ;k dsUnzh; f’k{kk i"kZn ds }kjk fuxZr vadi= ,oa fMIyksek mRrh.kZrk laca/kh izek.ki= gh layXu djsa A futh rduhdh egkfon~;ky;ksa ds }kjk fuxZr vadi= ,oa izek.ki= ekU; ugha gksaxs ,oa rnuqlkj vH;fFkZRo jn~n dj fn;s tk;saxs A ([k) vuqHko & fMIyksek izkIr djus ds ckn QSDV~zh ,DV ds vuqlkj fucaf/kr fdlh odZ’kkWi] tks fMty rFkk isV~zksy nksuksa izdkj ds batu ls ;qDr gYds eksVj okgu rFkk Mhty batu ls ;qDr Hkkjh eky okgd rFkk iSlsUtj okgu dh ejEerh] vksHkjgkWfyax ds dk;zZ esa layXu gksa] esa ejEerh] vksHkjgkWfyax ,oa fujh{k.k dk vuqHko A vkWVkseksckbZy vfHk;a=.k ds fMIyksek/kkjd ds fy, fMIyksek izkfIr ds i’pkr nks o"kksZa dk rFkk ;kaf=d vfHk;a=.k esa fMIyksek/kkjd ds fy;s ;g vuqHko U;qure ikWap o"kZ vko’;d gksxk A vkWVkseksckbZy bathfu;fjax esa iksLV fMIyksek/kkjd ds fy;s ;g vuqHko ,d o"kZ dk gksxk A ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd gYds isV~zksy] gYds Mhty] Hkkjh eky ,oa iSlsUtj Mhty okgu esa vxj ,d odZ’kkWi esa vuqHko izkIr u gks rks vyx&vyx odZ’kkWi ds vuqHko izek.k&i= i`Fkd&i`Fkd vo’; layXu djsa A blds vfrfjDr vH;FkhZ vius vuqHko dh vof/k ftlds fy;s os odZ’kkWi ls vuqHko izek.ki= 16 layXu dj jgsa gksa] dk QSDV~zh ,DV ds rgr fucaf/kr jgus dk izek.ki= layXu djsa A izek.ki= esa ;g Li"V :i ls vafdr jguk pkfg;s fd vuqHko izkIr djus dh vof/k esa odZ’kkWi QSDV~zh ,Dr ds varxZr fucaf/kr gS A ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd vkWVkseksckby vfHk;a=.k esa fMIyksek izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks Hkkjh okgu esa U;qure ,d o"kZ rFkk gYds okgu esa ,d o"kZ dk vuqHko izkIr gksuk pkfg, A ;kaf=d vfHk;a=.k esa fMIyksek izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks U;qure ,d o"kZ Hkkjh okgu rFkk gYds okgu esa U;wure ,d o"kZ dk vuqHko izkIr gksuk pkfg,] fdUrq nksuksa feykdj dqy ikWap o"kksZa dk vuqHko gks A vkWVkseksckby vfHk;a=.k esa iksLV fMIyksek/kkjh vH;FkhZ dks U;qure Ng ekg Hkkjh okgu esa rFkk gYds okgu esa U;wure Ng ekg dk vuqHko izkIr gksuk pkfg, A vuqHko izek.ki= esa vuqHko izkIr dk;ksZa dk Li"V mYys[k gks rkfd fu;e esa izko/kkfud ejEerh] vkWHkjgkWfyax ,oa fujh{k.k ds dk;Z vuqHko dh lR;rk izekf.kr gks lds A mi;qZDr 'krksZa ds ckjs esa fdlh Hkh lwpuk ds Li"V vafdr ugha jgus dh fLFkfr esa ;k mDr lwpukvksa dh iqf"V ds fy;s vko’;d izek.ki= layXu ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa vH;fFkZRo jn~n fd;s tk;saxs A vuqHko izek.ki= dh x.kuk foKkiu esa fu/kkZfjr vkosnu izkIr djus dh vafre frfFk (21.9.2007) rd ekU; dh tk;sxh A vuqHko laca/kh lwpuk,sa ,oa iqf"V esa izek.ki= fuEu izi=& 1 esa layXu djsa %& vU;Fkk vkosnu jn~n dj fn;k tk;sxk A (x) M~zkbZfoax ykbZlsal %&vH;FkhZ dks eksVjlkbfdy] gYds eksVj okgu] Hkkjh eky okgd ,oa Hkkjh ;k=h okgu pykus ds oS/k ykblsal dh x.kuk foKkiu esa fu/kkZfjr vkosnui= izkIr djus dh vafre frfFk (21.9.2007) rd ekU; dh tk;sxh A oS/k ykblsal vuqKfIr dk vFkZ Li"V gS fd mDr frfFk dks LFkkbZ] vLFkkbZ ugha] vuqKfIr gksus ds izek.ki= vko’;d gksaxs A blds fy;s vH;FkhZ vius M~zkbZfoax ykbZlsal dh Nk;kizfr Lo;a vfHkizekf.kr dj layXu djsa A blds lkFk eksVjlkbZfdy] gYds eksVj okgu] Hkkjh eky okgu rFkk Hkkjh iSlsUtj okgu ds ykbZlsal fdl frfFk dks vH;FkhZ ds i{k esa fuxZr fd;s x;s gSa] bls lacaf/kr izek.ki= ykblsal fuxZr djus okys inkf/kdkjh ls gLrk{kj djkdj layXu djsa A M~zkbZfoax ykbZlsal fuxZr djus okys inkf/kdkjh dk izek.ki= fuEu izi= 11 esa layXu djsa A (?k) pfj= %& vH;FkhZ dk pfj= ,slk gksuk pkfg, 17 ftlls og ljdkjh lsok esa fu;kstu ds fy;s lHkh izdkj ls ;ksX; gks A uSfrd v/kerk ds fdlh vijk/k ds fy;s nks"k fl) O;fDr fu;qfDr ds ik= ughsa gksaxs A (M) 'kkjhfjd ;ksX;rk %& vH;FkhZ dks ekufld ,oa 'kkjhfjd :i ls LoF; gksuk pkfg, vkSj fdUgha ,sls 'kkjhfjd viaxrk ;k vkuqosf’kd nks"kksa ls eqDr gksuk pkfg, ftuls muds drZO;ksa dk n{krkiwoZd fuoZgu djus esa ck/kd gksus dh laHkkouk gks A The experience certificate required to be produced by the candidates had to indicate that the candidates had the following experience ßtks fMty ls ;qDr gYds eksVj okgu rFkk Mhty batu ls ;qDr Hkkjh ekyokgu rFkk iSlsatj okgu dh ejEerh] vksHkjgkWfyax ds dk;Z esa layXu gksa] esa ejEefr vksHkjgkWfyax ,oa fujh{k.k dk vuqHkoAÞ The key words are “repair”, “overhauling” and “inspection.” As stated above, the scrutiny indicates that the experience certificate of the petitioners have been rejected because according to the Committee, it does not fulfil the criteria prescribed in the advertisement, inasmuch as the certificates do not contain the facts regarding the prescribed criteria of having experience in „repair‟, „overhauling‟ and „inspection‟. The experience certificates, on the other hand, contain words such as having experience in maintenance of vehicles, experience in supervision and experience in inspection, having full knowledge with 18 respect to working with different parts of light and heavy vehicles (such as gear box, differential suspension, steering etc.). The objection of the Committee is that the experience certificate ought to have contained all the criteria as mentioned in the advertisement in order to enable the candidates to appear for the interview of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The Committee feels certain difficulty in holding that the use of the various criteria is inter- changeable and as such has refrained from interpreting the meaning of the „words‟ used in the advertisement as they are the criteria laid down in the advertisement and the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India