IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2009 Chanan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner, who is an Ex-serviceman, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the qualifications for the post of Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Instructor laid down by the Punjab Industrial Training (Class-III) Technical Service Rules, 2001 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) to the extent it requires a candidate to have qualified the Craft Instructors Training Course from the Central C.W.P. No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) Training Institute/Advanced Training Institute in the concerned trade from National Council for Vocational Training. He has further prayed that the qualification be read down so as to consider the petitioner as qualified. It is appropriate to mention that respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up posts in 56 trades on contract basis on a fixed salary of Rs. 7,500/- per month, including six posts of Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Instructor. One of the posts of Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Instructor was kept reserved for Ex-servicemen category. As per the appendix attached to the Rules, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Instructor was that the candidate should have possessed Diploma in Electronic and Communication Engineering from a recognised university or institution and at least two years practical experience in an organisation registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or at least two years teaching experience in a Government Institution or an Institution recognised by the Government. The alternate qualification on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner is that a candidate should possess National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Trade from National Council for Vocational Training and should have passed Craft Instructors Training Course from Central Training Institute/Advance Training Institute in Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Trade from National Council for Vocational Training. Further requirement of the Rules is that he 2 C.W.P. No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) should have possess at least two years practical experience in an organisation 3 C.W.P. No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) registered under the Factories Act, 1948 or at least two years teaching experience in the line in a Government Institution recognised by the Government. It could not be disputed that the petitioner does not answer either set of qualifications. He claimed to have fulfilled alternative qualification of possessing National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Trade from National Council for Vocational Training. As a matter of fact, the certificate possessed by the petitioner is that of a Welder, which obviously does not belong to the trade of Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator trade. Mr. Raina then relies upon certificate dated 3.5.2003, issued by the Battery Commander (P-1) which states that the petitioner has long experience which is equivalent to the qualification of Wireless Operator. There is no such provision in the Rules recognising experience as equivalent to qualification. This is not a fit case where vires of the Rules could be examined on the ground that in the alternate qualification Craft Instructors Training Course from Central Training Institute/Advance Training Institute in Wireless Mechanic-cum-Operator Trade from National Council for Vocational Training, has been provided and that no such course is available in such institutions. Such a question can appropriately be examined at the instance of a person who at least answers the other qualifications provided in the alternative qualifications. Accordingly the writ petition does not deserve admission. Therefore, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) July 22, 2009 JUDGE 4 C.W.P. No. 17872 of 2007 (O&M) Pkapoor 5