IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6096 of 2010. Decided on: 5.4.2011. Sanjeev Kumar …..Petitioner. versus H.P. Tourism Development Corporation & ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.2. Mr.Rajan Kahol, Advocate, for respondent No.3. --------------------------------------------------- V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following relief: “That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent Corporation to appoint/engage the petitioner as Trainee (kitchen) in view of his excellent performance rendered both in written as well as in the personal interview.” 2. The petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 2.12.2009, published in the Amar Ujala (Annexure P-1) applied for the post of Trainee (Kitchen). Sl.No.3 of the advertisement 2 (Annexure P-3) pertains to the post in question i.e. Trainee (Kitchen). The qualification provided for the said post in the advertisement is as under: “10+2 or equivalent with 1-1/2 years Diploma in Food Production/Bakery from a recognized institute. Age between 18 to 45 years. Upper age limit is relaxable by 5 years in the case of SC candidate.” Thus, the requirement, as provided in the advertisement, was that the candidate should possess qualification of 10+2 or equivalent with 1- 1/2 years diploma in Food Production/Bakery from a recognized institute. The petitioner allegedly being eligible applied for the said post. The petitioner alleged that he passed 10+2 examination in September, 2004 and has been granted Certificate (Annexure P-3) in Craftsmanship Course in Food Production & Patisserie by the National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology, New Delhi. The petitioner also alleged that he possessed the requisite experience also. The marks for interview were 15. The petitioner alleged that he appeared in the interview for the post in question alongwith other candidates and as such the petitioner was entitled to be engaged against the post in question. 3. In the reply filed by respondent No.1, it was pleaded that in case the petitioner is aggrieved against his non-appointment as a Trainee 3 (Kitchen), after participating in the selection process and the interview, he could have filed an appeal/representation to respondent No.1, which has not been filed by the petitioner. It was also pleaded that the candidate was required to be 10+2 with 1-1/2 years diploma in Food Production from a recognized institute. It was pleaded that the petitioner has passed 1-1/2 years Craftsmanship course and he was not possessing the requisite Diploma and as such he was not entitled to be appointed. It was also pleaded that no person possessing the Certificate/Craft Course qualification has been engaged/appointed in the category of Trainee (Kitchen) by respondent No.1 Corporation during the recent recruitment process in view of the advertisement dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P-1). 4. It is clear from the above discussion of the facts that the requisite qualification required for the post in question was 10+2 with 1-1/2 years ‘diploma’ in Food Production. The petitioner was having a ‘Certificate’ in Craftsmanship Course on completion of 1-/12 years programme. Thus, he had, prima facie, done his Certificate Course for 1-1/2 year. But this was only a Certificate issued to the petitioner in Craftsmanship Course and the diploma is not being issued, as is pleaded by the petitioner. The petitioner by way of rejoinder had pleaded that in case he was not eligible to the 4 post of Trainee (Kitchen), why his application was entertained and considered by the respondent Corporation. It was also pleaded by the petitioner in the rejoinder that the difference is only in nomenclature between diploma and Certificate and there being nothing dis-similar between the qualification and the period of course. 5. During the pendency of the petition, to seek clarification from the Institution from which the petitioner had done the Course, the Institute of Hotel Management at Kufri was impleaded as respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 also filed the reply in which it was pleaded that the nature of the Course i.e. the Diploma in Food Production and the Certificate in Craftsmanship Course are different whereas the eligibility for both is the same. It was also pleaded that the Institute was having no Course for Diploma in Food Production and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed as such. 6. It is clear from the above discussion that the dispute is in regard to the fact if the diploma in Food Production and the Certificate in Craftsmanship Course are same and are only having different nomenclature and whether since the eligibility criteria is the same as 10+2, these should be considered as equivalent. This question pertains to the fact as to whether both these courses are equivalent and can be considered as 5 such and as to whether the advertisement issued in this behalf entitled the petitioner to apply for the post in question. Respondent No.1 in its reply has also pleaded that a representation could have been made by the petitioner in this regard and once this question pertains to the fact as to whether both these Courses are equivalent, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in case an opportunity is given to the petitioner to file a representation in this behalf to respondent No.1, who shall consider all the material placed before him and then decide the issue. In case the prayer made by the petitioner is considered for the first time in this Court, it involves consideration of the facts and the material placed on record and may also deprive the petitioner of challenging the findings. In case the representation is decided against him, he will still have an opportunity to challenge the same before this Court by way of writ petition. 7. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in all fairness, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to make a representation to respondent No.1, which will not deprive him of an opportunity of challenging the order in case it goes against him and he will be entitled to place all the material, including the material in case similar appointment has been made by respondent No.1 considering this Course of Craftsmanship equivalent 6 to diploma as was argued during the course of hearing. 8. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed to this extent that the petitioner is permitted to file representation to respondent No.1 alongwith a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition within a period of one month from today. The petitioner is at liberty to mention the facts in case any person has been appointed by respondent No.1 taking into consideration the Certificate Course equivalent to the Diploma. He could also point out the instances of appointment given to similarly placed persons, if any, and respondent No.1 will consider all the material placed before him and then decide the representation accordingly within a period of another two months of the date of filing the representation. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. April 5, 2011. (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.