C.W.P. No. 12343 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12343 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: 21.4.2011 Surinder Singh Pathania ..PETITIONER VS. UT Khadi & Village Industries & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate and Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for UT Chandigarh. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner, through the instant writ petition, has challenged the order dated 16.8.1989 by virtue of which he has been re-designated to the post of Supervisor from that of Technical Supervisor, the higher post. The facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the services of respondent Board as Clerk on 4.5.1978. He was given the additioinal charge of the post of Technical Supervisor(Carpentary and Blacksmithy) vide order dated 4.4.1985. Subsequently on 9.10.1987 he was promoted on the said post but with the stipulation that he will acquire diploma in Carpentary and Blacksmithy within two years. It is the case of the petitioner that despite numerous requests made by him to depute him for the technical training, no action was taken and on 16.8.1989 he was reverted from the post of Technical Supervisor to the post of Supervisor and this time also a condition to acquire the necessary technical training was imposed. C.W.P. No. 12343 of 1991 2 However, the petitioner was not sponsored for any training and hence apprehending that he may be again reverted to the post of Senior Clerk, he filed the instant petition. In reply, the Board did not dispute the factual aspect of the matter, but stick to its version that since the petitioner did not underwent the essential training, as stipulated in his promotion order, therefore, he was rightly reverted back. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 9.10.1987 the petitioner was given the promotion as Technical Supervisor(C&B) on adhoc basis with the condition that he will acquire the technical training required for the post within two years. On 17.5.1988 an application (Annexure P-4) was made by the petitioner and thereby he requested the Board to send him on training. Accordingly, the Board send the request to the Director, (C&B Industry) Bombay to apprise the schedule of training. However, in response thereto, the Board received the letter dated 13/14.7.1988 (Annexure P-6) wherein they made it clear that the workshop do not any have any training programme at Dahanu and suggested that the official be provided technical training in any part time technical institution. It appears that on the one hand the Board kept on asking the petitioner to undergo technical training but itself failed to sponsor the name of the petitioner as a special case to undergo technical training. It is evident from the records that despite as undertaking given in this Court to sponsor the name of the petitioner for training no serious efforts were shown to have made by them. Further, during the course of arguments certain documents, C.W.P. No. 12343 of 1991 3 which are stated to have been received under the Right to Information Act, have been shown wherein it is mentioned that the Member Secretary of the Board recommended for grant of relaxation of condition of acquiring of technical training and while making said recommendations, it has been observed that the qualifications are relaxable in the case of departmental employees or in the case of candidates otherwise found suitable. Further, it has been observed in the recommendations that it would not be possible for the Board to spare the services of the petitioner continuously for two years. From the above, it is apparent that the Board itself was reluctant to send the petitioner on training and tried to blow hot and cold in the same breath by saying that the petitioner did not acquire the essential technical training. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner is working on the post of Technical Supervisor for the last more than 20 years and is now at the verge of retirement. According to him the experience is the best qualification. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Amarjit Singh & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd. & Ors. , 2006(4) SLR 371, wherein it has been held by this Court that experience is the best substitute to qualification. In the case of B.N. Saxena Vs. The New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors., 1990(2) RSJ 512, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the experience gained for considerable length of time is itself a qualification. In Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation 1992(8) SLR 784, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to C.W.P. No. 12343 of 1991 4 assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments of petitioners were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications.” There is no dispute that the petitioner is efficiently discharging his duties on the post of Technical Supervisor, as his reversion was stayed by this Court. Therefore, in view of the legal position above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Board is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that most of the service benefits of the petitioner have been kept in abeyance and have not been granted to the petitioner on account of pendency of this petition. Be that so, the respondent Board is directed to grant all the benefits to the petitioner whatsoever were due and accrued to him with the setting aside of the impugned order of his reversion, within three months. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 21,2011 Jiten