IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 15926 of 2008 Judgment reserved on: 11.3.2011 Date of decision: 13. 4. 2011. Balbir Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 10. Mr. D.K.Khanna, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No.11. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed for quashing of selection made by the respondents against the posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic in pursuance of advertisement No. 1665 of 2007, with further direction to give appointment to petitioner against the post of Instructor Electronics Mechanic. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner after passing matriculation examination in March, 1992 went for National Trade Certificate Course and successfully completed the course in the trade of Mechanic Electronic in the year 1992. The petitioner had undergone the course of apprenticeship from December, 1998 to November, 1999. He passed the trade test as regular candidate in the trade of Mechanic Electronic in November, 2001. The petitioner had also done CTI training i.e. trade test for Craft Instructor from the National Council for Vocational Training Advance Training Institute V.N. Purav Marg, Sion, Mumbai which was the only institute authorized to run the course of CTI. 3. The respondents No.1 to 3 advertised some posts in various categories, which were to be filled up on contract basis in the pay scale of ` 5480 + 50% dearness allowance. The petitioner in pursuance of the said advertisement applied for the post of Instructor Electronics Mechanic. As per advertisement, it was proposed to fill up three posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic. The essential qualifications for the post of Instructor Electronics Mechanic as per advertisement were as follows:- (i) Matric with Sc. and Math from recognized University/Board or equivalent. (ii) National Trade Certificate in the trade commenced or equivalent issued recognised by NCVT or National Apprenticeship Training Scheme (Later to be preferred). 3 (iii) C.T.I. training atleast one year duration in the trade concerned with at least two years experience in the trade concerned in an Industrial Training Institute or in reputed industrial concerned. 4. The petitioner was eligible for the post of Instructor Electronics Mechanic. He appeared in the interview on 15.9.2007. The petitioner has additional qualifications in the same field. He had done course of Higher National Technician Certificate in the trade of Consumer Electronic. The petitioner had worked as Electronic Instructor in Jyotsna Industrial Training Centre from 16.10.2002 to 21.8.2004 and thereafter from 18.7.2005 to 30.11.2006. The petitioner had also worked as Instructor Electronics in the Government Polytechnic College, Hamirpur. The petitioner in the interview held on 3.3.2006 was short listed for the post of Workshop Instructor Electronics. The respondent No.2 had also sponsored the name of petitioner for the post of Craft Training Instructor in the year 2004. 5. The petitioner was fulfilling all the requisite qualifications as per advertisement for the post of Instructor Electronics Mechanic. But to the utter surprise of the petitioner when the result for appointment to the posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic was declared on 10.10.2007 the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the select list. There were in all three posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic and eight candidates were declared successful for the appointment to the said posts. It has been alleged 4 that respondents No.4 to 11 were not fulfilling the criteria of qualifications as per advertisement. The respondents No.4 to 11 had not completed the course of CTI which was one of the essential qualifications for the post. The selection of respondents No.4 to 11 against the posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic is illegal and deserves to be quashed. 6. The respondent department had advertised only three posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic but selected eight candidates for filling up eight posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic. The respondent-department had made selection in excess than it was required. This was done to accommodate respondents No.4 to 11. 7. The petitioner had performed well in the interview, he was meritorious among all the candidates, who appeared in the interview. He had additional qualifications, the respondents erred in ignoring the petitioner and wrongly, illegally selected the respondents No. 4 to 11 against the posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic. 8. The respondents No. 1 to 3, 5, 10 and 11 contested the petition by filing separate replies. On 11.3.2011 a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.5 was duly qualified at the time of his selection and, therefore, petitioner has no grievance against the selection of respondent No.5, hence it is not necessary to refer to reply of respondent No.5. 9. The respondents No.1 to 3 in the reply have stated that the candidates who have been engaged as Mechanic Electronics 5 Instructors on contractual basis are eligible and fulfill the requisite essential educational and professional qualifications i.e. Craft Training Instructors (CTI) as per existing Recruitment & Promotion Rules. They possess the basis essential qualification i.e. Craft Training Instructor. The respondents No. 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 have acquired their CTI qualification from National Vocational Training Institute , Noida and respondents No. 8 and 11 have acquired this qualification from National Vocational Training Institute, Noida and Principal of Teaching from Regional Vocational Training Institute, Jhalani, Rajasthan recognized institutions by the Government of India. 10. In reply to para 6 (iii), it has been stated that candidate for CTI in the trade of Electronics was sponsored by the respondent-department on the recommendations of the Managing Director, Jyotsna Industrial Training Centre, Khiah, Hamirpur as he was working in the said centre. The respondent-department was empowered to do so by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Advanced Training Institute, Mumbai letter dated 7.5.2004. This does not mean that respondent-department was bound to engage/appoint the petitioner on the post of Instructor in replying respondent-department. The appointments are made on merit basis and the petitioner was not appointed as he did not stand in the order of merit. The relevant qualifications and experience were duly taken care at the time of interview. 11. It has been pleaded that in the advertisement replying respondent had stated that three posts of Instructors Electronics 6 Mechanic were to be filled up but it was also stated that the posts may vary depending upon the posts created by the Government in each trade for new Industrial Training Institutes as the process of opening of new Polytechnic and Industrial Training Institutes was going on. 12. The respondents No.10 and 11 in their separate replies have defended their selection and appointments and contested the claim of the petitioner that he was more meritorious. The respondent No.10 in his reply has pleaded that petitioner participated in the entire selection process but did not raise any protest either before the selection committee or before any other authority to prove his allegations which are after thought. It has been submitted by respondents No.10 and 11 that they were fully eligible for selection and appointment as Instructor Electronics Mechanic and no fault can be found with their selection. 13. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.11 and has stated that advertisement specifically laid down that candidate must possess CTI qualification of atleast one year duration in the trade concerned with atleast two years experience in the trade concerned in an industrial training institute or in reputed industrial concern. The respondent No.11 does not possess this qualification. The petitioner reiterated his stand in the rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.10 and projected the case pleaded in the petition. 14. On 19.10.2010 the respondent No.2 was directed to file affidavit whether selected candidates fulfill requisite qualifications. 7 The Director Technical Education in compliance to order dated 19.10.2010 has filed affidavit dated 12.11.2010 and has stated that respondents 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 fulfill the requisite qualifications and experience. These respondents have successfully completed the National Craft Instructor Certificate of four months (after undergoing Advanced Skill Training Course) in a particular trade awarded by the National Vocational Training Institute as well as Regional Vocational Training Institutes set up under the Women’s Vocational Training Programme of the DGE&T which is recognized for the purpose of recruitment to subordinate posts and services under the Central Government as per the clarification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour (DGE&T), New Delhi dated 17.6.1998, it has also been submitted that respondent No.5 also fulfills the requisite qualification and experience. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in his petition in paragraph 6 (iii) has stated that he was fulfilling all the eligibility criteria and educational qualification for appointment to the post of Instructor Electronics Mechanic as per advertisement. He appeared in the interview on 15.9.2007. He was not selected and appointed. It has been stated that respondent No.2 has also sponsored the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of CTI in the year 2004. The result of the interview was declared on 10.10.2007 but petitioner was not selected for the post of Instructor Electronics Mechanic. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No. 4, 6 to 11 were not holding or possessing even the basic essential qualification mentioned in the advertisement. 8 The respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply have not denied that the petitioner was eligible for the post of Instructor Electronics Mechanic. It has been stated that the name of the petitioner for getting requisite training in CTI in the trade of Electronic was sponsored by the respondent department on the recommendations of the Managing Director, Jyotsna Industrial Training Centre as he was working in that centre and the department was empowered to do so vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Advanced Training Institute letter dated 7.5.2004. The selection and appointments were made on the basis of merit and the petitioner did not stand in the merit. 16. In so far challenge to the eligibility of respondents No.4, 6 to 11, the Director Technical Education in his affidavit dated 12.11.2010 has very clearly and unequivocally stated that respondents No. 4, 6 to 11 fulfill the requisite qualifications and experience. They have successfully completed the National Craft Instructor certificate of four months (after undergoing Advanced Skill Training Course) in a particular trade awarded by the National Vocational Training Institutes set up under the Women’s Vocational Training Programme of the DGE&T recognized for subordinate posts and services under the Central Government vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour (DGE&T) letter dated 17.6.1998. The petitioner has not refuted the affidavit dated 12.11.2010 by filing counter affidavit. 17. The petitioner initially challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 also. In the affidavit dated 12.11.2010 of Director Technical Education, it has been stated that 9 respondent No.5 fulfills the requisite qualification and experience. On 11.3.2011 at the time of hearing of the petition a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that he has no grievance against the selection of respondent No.5. The petitioner has failed to make out a case that respondents No. 4, 6 to 11 were not eligible for selection and appointment as Instructor Electronics Mechanic as per advertisement. 18. The petitioner has also raised grievance that only three posts of Instructors Electronics Mechanic were advertised but as against these posts, eight persons were selected and appointed. The selection and appointment of candidates more than the advertised posts is wrong and illegal. The respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply have very clearly stated that in the advertisement itself it was provided that the number of posts may vary depending upon the posts to be created by the Government in each trade for new Industrial Training Institutes as the process of opening of new Polytechnic and Industrial Institutes was going on. Thus, it can be safely concluded that in the advertisement itself the provision was kept for selection and appointment of more than three persons as Instructors Electronics Mechanic as per the requirement of the Government. 19. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. April 13, 2011 (Kuldip Singh) (gr) Judge