HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12440 of 2011 Dated 14-11-2011 Between: Chandra Sekhar Reddy and others. …Petitioners. And: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad represented by its Managing Director and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12440 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioners to the post of Electrician keeping the seven vacancies unfilled on the ground that they have not produced the National Apprenticeship Certificate, as contrary to the Notification dated 12-11-2010, the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, the circular No.PD- 58/2010 dated 10-11-2010, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to select the petitioners to the post of Electrician in the 2nd respondent-Region as they have already submitted Provisional National Trade Certificate, possessed Wiremen Licence, sufficient experience as Electrician, passed the Trade Test in “A++ Grade & A Grade” and secured higher marks than two candidates selected by the Selection Committee. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Respondent-Corporation has issued notification on 12-11-2010 inviting applications for filling up of the vacancies of Mechanics/Artisans, Electrician (AC/DC) in Regions, Non-operating Units i.e., workshops, Printing Press and Tyre Retrading Shop. In the said notification, the qualifications for the post of Electrician is shown as ITI in Trade of Electrician with Wiremen Competency Certificate issued by the Electricity Department and nine posts were advertised. As all the petitioners are having the required qualifications, they have applied for the post of Electrician in Kurnool Region. The respondent Corporation has issued a circular No.PD-58/2010 dated 10-11-2010 prescribing the method of selection to the posts of Electricians and other Artisans. In the said circular, it is stated that as per the Recruitment Regulations, the eligibility criteria for the post of Electrician is ITI in Electrician Trade with Wiremen Competency Certificate issued by Electricity Department and the candidate must pass Trade Test. The procedure of selection was detailed and the apportionment of 100 marks for the candidates appearing for interview for direct recruitment post of Electrician/Artisan Gr.II is shown as follows: 1) Marks obtained in basic qualification weighed down to 25 marks. 2) Trade test marked weighed down to 50 marks, 3) Additional qualification 05 marks, 4) Experience 05 marks, 5) Sports/NCC 05 marks and 6) Interview 10 marks and total comes to 100 marks. Pursuant to the above said notification dated 12-11-2010, the petitioners have applied for the post of Electrician in Kurnool Region and they were interviewed by the Selection Committee on 12-3-2011 at Regional Manager’s Office, Kurnool. As they were fully qualified, the Selection Committee has directed them to appear for Trade Test at Zonal Workshop, Kadapa on 1-4-2011. Accordingly, the petitioners have appeared for the Trade Test for the post of Electrician on the same day itself and the selection committee, after completion of Trade Test, has informed the petitioners that they have passed the Trade test in “A” Grade and basing on the marks secured by them in ITI, the experience put in by the petitioners, additional qualifications possessed and the performance in the Trade Test, they are entitled for higher marks than the two persons now selected under the non- local quota. The Selection committee has not selected any candidate in the seven vacancies meant for the local candidates. All the seven vacancies are not filled up on the ground that no candidate is having National Apprenticeship Certificate. As per the said notification, possessing of National Apprenticeship Certificate is not necessary. Even according to the A.,P.S.R.T.C. Employees, (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, the qualification does not specify that the candidate must possess National Apprenticeship Certificate for the post of Electrician (AC/DC). The Certificates of the petitioners were verified by the Selection Committee on 2-3-2011 and in the said verification, the petitioners have clearly informed the selection committee that they do not possess National Apprenticeship Certificate. In spite of the said specific information given to the selection committee, the committee has directed them for Trade Test on 1-4-2011. Hence, this writ petition is filed seeking to direct the respondents to select the petitioners to the post of Electrician in the 2nd respondent-Region. On 27-7-2011, this Court while admitting the writ petition, issued notice to the proposed respondents. In response to the same, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contending inter alia as follows: The Corporation has issued a notification dated 12- 11-2010 inviting applications for filling up of vacancies of Electricians and pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners applied for the same. The eligibility criteria and qualifications were specified in the notification and also in the Recruitment Regulations. The Recruitment Regulations clearly stipulates that preference will be given to those candidates who possess National Apprenticeship Certificate. The Corporation has issued Circular dated 10-11-2010 prescribing the procedure to be followed for recruitment of the Electrician/Artisan. In the said circular also, it was stated that preference will be given to National Apprenticeship Certificate Holders. The petitioners were called for interview and trade test subject to their eligibility. But the petitioners were not selected as they are not in possession of National Apprenticeship Certificate. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Electrician are stated in the notification as well as in the Recruitment Regulations also. The eligibility criteria is possession of National Apprenticeship Certificate. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the Corporation. While reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the prescribed qualification for the post of Electrician even as per the Notification, dated 12.11.2010 and the A.P.S.R.T.C Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 and Circular No:PD-58/2010, dated 10.11.2010, is only I.T.I but not the National Apprentice Certificate and apart from that, the instructions of the authorities insisting for production of National Apprentice Certificate amount to arbitrariness and also violation of the Regulations in question. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contention, he relied on a Judgment of this Court reported in N.SAMBA SIVA RAO & OTHERS VS. APSRTC ([1]) wherein this Court observed thus: “I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. Suffice it to state that the administrative instructions issued by the Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director of the APSRTC should be in conformity with the Statutory Regulations governing the post of Artisan Grade II, and should not be contrary to the Statutory Regulations. Statutory Regulations governing the post of Artisan Grade II do not prescribe that a candidate for the post of Artisan Grade II must necessarily possess NAC whereas, the administrative instructions issued by the Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director of the APSRTC prescribe that the candidate for the post of Artisan Grade II should necessarily possess NAC. The administrative instructions issued by the Vice-Chairman and the Managing Director of the APSRTC has the effect of amending the Statutory Regulations and such a course is totally impermissible in law.” Before going into the merits of the case, the facts that remain undisputed are that the Corporation has issued Notification dated 12.11.2010 inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Electrician along with other posts, specifying the requisite qualification as I.T.I. There is also no dispute that even as per the A.P.S.R.T.C Employees’ (Recruitment) Regulations as well as the Circular No:PD-58/2010, dated 10.11.2010, the prescribed qualification for the post of Electrician, is only I.T.I Certificate. Now, coming to the facts of the case, there is no dispute that the petitioners possessed the I.T.I Certificate. Apart from that, it is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners have also produced the Provisional National Trade Certificate. While admitting that the eligibility criteria and qualifications specified in the notification and also in the Recruitment Regulations, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that as per the Circular No:PD-58/2010, dated 10.11.2010, though the requisite qualification is prescribed as I.T.I, but it suggests that preference will be given to the National Apprenticeship Certificate Holders. Therefore, since the petitioners have not possessed such certificates, they are not entitled for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. At the cost of repetition, it remains undisputed that the petitioners possessed the I.T.I qualification and also Provisional National Trade Certificate, which are in my considered opinion, are sufficient to consider their case for appointment in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the above decision. Apart from that, possessing National Apprenticeship Certificate, according to the respondents-authorities, will be considered only as a preference to consider for appointment. But, that does not mean that it is the requisite qualification. In these circumstances, there is no other go except to hold that the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for appointments to the posts in question amounts to arbitrariness and contrary to the Notification, dated 12.11.2010 as well as the A.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 and also the Circular of the Authorities, dated 10.11.2010. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ____________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 14-11-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.12440 of 2011 Dated 14-11-2011 [1] 2000(3) ALD 632