1 WP NO.8832/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8832 of 2010 /unreported/ Date of decision:4/7/2011 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.B.BHOSALE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.B.DESHMUKH 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? Private Secretary AGP/office/8832-10wp 2 WP NO.8832/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8832 OF 2010 Sayyad Imran Mohammad Shafi, Age 30 years, Occu. Nil, r/o. Plot No.95, Roshan Manzil, Gazi Nagar, Nandurbar, Tq. -District Nandurbar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Director of Vocational Education and Training, Municipal Corporation Road, Mumbai-1. 3. The Dy.Director of Vocational Education and Training, Regional Office, Nashik-2, Post Box No.456, Nashik. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Ajay G.Talhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Gordbharle, AGP for respondents. ... CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE & S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. Date: July 4th, 2011 *** 3 WP NO.8832/2010 JUDGMENT: (Per S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Rule, made returnable and heard forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in response to an advertisement published on 27th/28th June, 2008, in Daily Lokmat, for recruitment of various posts, applied for the post of Craft Instructor. The advertisement shows 12 vacancies of Craft Instructors, to be filled in. The qualification required for the post of Craft Instructor was mentioned in the advertisement as "Degree or Diploma in Engineering/Technology of statutory University at least in II Class of appropriate branch to the trade of any recognized institution or any other qualification declared by Government to be equivalent thereto OR for candidate who has passed National Apprenticeship Certificate exam in IInd class OR candidates who have passed National Trade Certificate Examination, etc". 3. According to the petitioner, he was holding S.S.C., H.S.C., I.T.I. Data Preparation and Computer Software ( hereinafter referred to as "DPCS."). It was further claimed that he had 4 WP NO.8832/2010 applied for and participated in the entire recruitment process for the post of Craft Instructor. The petitioner also appeared for the written examination in view of the communication addressed to him by the respondents. Call letter, addressed to the petitioner, was dt.13th Sept.,2008. In that call letter, some instructions were given and petitioner specifically states that, according to instruction no.2, petitioner was permitted to supply copies of the documents. He, accordingly, supplied the copies of documents showing his eligibility for his candidature, for the post of Craft Instructor. The petitioner has secured 108.29 marks out of 200 marks. There is no dispute that in the written test for 100 marks, petitioner has secured 45 marks. For oral test, 20 marks were allotted and petitioner could secure 13.29 marks. Practical test was held for 80 marks and petitioner could secure 50 marks. The Selection Committee published final selection list on 1st of Oct.,2008. This shows the petitioner at Sr.No.4. There, the Selection Committee made a remark against the name of the petitioner that petitioner is eligible. Despite the fact that the petitioner was held to be eligible for appointment of the Craft Instructor and his name appears at Sr.No.4 in the final selection list, he has not been appointed, is the grievance of the petitioner. 5 WP NO.8832/2010 4. The petitioner, against this backdrop, did approach to Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1193/2009. Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ( For short, "Tribunal") heard the parties and dismissed the Original Application No.1193/2009 filed by the petitioner by its judgment and order dt.12th April, 2010. It is this judgment and order passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal which is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner took us to the documents placed on record. Annexure B, communication dt.18th August, 2008, is addressed to the petitioner. He was called upon to appear for the written test on 31st August, 2008. So far as practical examination and oral test is concerned, document Annexure C is placed on record. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner took us to the document Exh.D. It is a statement showing marks obtained by candidates in the written test, oral test and final marks for the post of Craft Instructor (COPA). Name of the present petitioner is at Sr.No.9. Marks secured by the petitioner in the written test, practical examination and oral test have been 6 WP NO.8832/2010 mentioned. In the remarks column at Column No. 21, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is eligible. There is no dispute that, ultimately, appointment letter has not been issued by respondent no.3 in favour of the petitioner. 7. On behalf of respondents, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is supported. Counsel appearing for respondents made available to us some documents. It is the communication addressed to Director ( Training) of Vocational Education and Training, Mumbai, dated March 28th, 2011. This document is marked as "X" for identification, taken on record. This is signed by Director of Training. This document shows comparison between the syllabus of Computer Operator & Programming Assistant ( for short, "COPA") and Data Preparation & Computer Software ( for short, "DPCS") (old name), seniority of the Course. This communication seems to have been addressed to Director (Training), in view of filing of the present writ petition by the present petitioner. The document Exh.X is coupled with Annexure A, showing Course content, comparison between between Data Preparation and Computer Software (DPCS) & COPA (Computer Operator & Programming Assistant). 8. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the 7 WP NO.8832/2010 parties. Un-disputably, applicant has completed D.P.C.S. (Data Preparation and Computer Software) Course of ITI in July, 1998. It seems that there was change in the syllabus. The Ministry of Labour and Government of India by its letter dt.2nd Feb.,1998, changed the syllabus and name of the Course which is, thereafter, called as Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA). It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that only the name of the Course is changed from DPCS to COPA and he is holding DPCS qualification which is nothing else but COPA Course. It is not possible for us to accede to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for more than one reason. This was also the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal has observed that the merit list which was placed on record (Page No.15) shows that amongst ten candidates, on merits, present applicant was shown at Sr. No.4. The appointment was not issued to him because the applicant/petitioner has passed DPCS and not COPA. The reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1 to 4 before the learned Tribunal has been considered and quoted in paragraph no.2 of its judgment. The learned Tribunal ultimately reached to the conclusion that the 8 WP NO.8832/2010 petitioner/applicant has passed DPCS trade or course and though DPCS is converted into COPA trade but syllabus was modified/revised. 9. Before learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, document Exh.X probably was not available. There, the learned Tribunal has simply observed that the syllabus has been modified or revised. However, before us, document Exh.X has been placed on record and we are convinced that it is not a case of transformation of DPCS Course with its syllabus to that of COPA. In our opinion, COPA has altogether different syllabus. Petitioner was not eligible and justifiably, learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. We see no merit in the writ petition. Writ Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) ... AGP/8832-10wp