CWP No.646 of 2008.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.646 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.01.2010 **** Lal Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for the Union of India Mr. Jagmit Moudgil, Advocate for Respondents No.5,6 and 9 to 12 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the selection list prepared for appointment to the posts of Tractor Mechanic Instructor pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.06.2007 (Annexure P1) followed by a corrigendum. (2). In terms of the corrigendum, a candidate was required to possess the National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship in Mechanic CWP No.646 of 2008.doc - 2 – Tractor Trade from National Council for Vocational Training or ought to have passed the Craft Instructors Training Course from Central Training Institute/ Advanced Training institute in Farm Mechanic Trade, to be eligible for the advertised posts. (3). The petitioner, who has passed a Training Course in Mechanic Agricultural Machinery from the Directorate of Technical Education and Industrial Training Department, Government of Punjab, also applied in response to the above-stated advertisement but his application was rejected on the plea that he does not fulfill the requisite qualification of National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate in Tractor Mechanic Trade. (4). The petitioner’s contention appears to be that the two years’ Diploma Course possessed by him in Mechanic Agricultural Machinery includes one- year Programme on Tractor Mechanic Course (first year) and Farm Mechanic Course (second year). He says so on the basis of a memo dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure P7) issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. CWP No.646 of 2008.doc - 3 – (5). The respondents have filed their counter-reply reiterating that the petitioner’s claim was duly considered but his application was rejected for want of requisite qualifications. The Union of India has also filed its counter reply primarily emphasizing that the National Council for Vocational Training is an Advisory body which sends its recommendations to the State Government, who are expected to implement the same. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. (7). There can indeed be no doubt that the intricated questions like equivalence of the technical/professional qualifications, fall within the domain of the expert bodies as the Courts do not possess that expertise or mechanism to determine the equivalence of two qualifications. (8). Since the respondents have duly considered the petitioner’s eligibility and after a long correspondence, have arrived at a conclusion that he does not possess the requisite qualification, no fault can be found with their decision. The desired writ, therefore, cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. CWP No.646 of 2008.doc - 4 – (9). At the same time, it appears in public and efficient administrative interest to direct the respondents to constitute an Expert Committee to go into the issue of equivalence of the Diploma Course in Farm Mechanic or Tractor Mechanic Course, with the advertised qualifications. This exercise shall be undertaken by the Expert Committee after going through the syllabi as well as the manner of imparting the Training Course(s) to the candidates like the petitioner. (10). If the Expert Committee is of the opinion that the Diploma in Mechanic Agricultural Machinery can be treated equivalent to the Diploma in Farm Mechanic/Tractor Mechanic Training Course, the first Respondent shall take necessary steps for such declaration for future purposes. The entire exercise shall be undertaken as early as possible and preferably within six months. (11). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 11.01.2010 vishal shonkar