High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3910/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The challenge in this writ petition is the selection and appointment of the resp ondent No. 5 as Instructor in the trade of Radio & T.V. It is an admitted positi on that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 qualified in the written te st and were called for the oral test, in which, while the petitioner secured 52, the respondent No. 5 secured 69.17 marks. In the written examination both of th em secured 24. Thus their total come to 76 and 93.17 marks respectively. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 being not qualified in the tra de of Radio & T.V. could not have been selected. While the petitioner is a diplo ma holder in the trade of Radio & T.V., the respondent No. 5 is a diploma holder in the trade of Electronics and Communication Engineering. By Annexure-8 RTI ap plication dated 30.3.2010, the petitioner made the following queries: (cid:28)Now, I request you to furnish the Photostat copy of all the relevant certificat es which the appointed candidate have submitted before you and on the basis of t hose he has got the appointment. Whether those certificates submitted by the selected candidate are appropriate t o get the job as mentioned as Criteria to get the job in the employment notice? (cid:29) In reply to the said RTI application, the Director of Employment & Craftsmen Tra ining vide its reply dated 28.4.2010 informed that the information being related to third party is exempted under the provision of RTI Act, 2005. However, it wa s stated that the qualification of the selected candidate is (i) H.S. (Science) and (ii) Diploma in Electronics and Communication. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it has been stated the d iploma course in Electronic and Communication is the appropriate trade for the p ost of Instructor of Radio & T.V. In paragraph-4 of the said affidavit, it has b een stated thus: (cid:28)4. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs No. 3 the answering de ponent states that for 3 (three) years diploma course of Engineering there is no separate or/course for Radio & Television (R & TV) trade. The R & TV is include
Legal Reasoning
d in the trade of Electronics and Telecommunication trade. (cid:29) (Highlighted) In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, the aforesaid plea of the respon dents has been denied. It has been stated that the course undertaken by the resp ondent No. 5 did not include Radio & T.V.. It has further been stated that the p articular trade being Radio & T.V., no other trade can match the said trade. I have heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and so also Mr . S.P. Das, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. While M r. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when only two cand idates had appeared in the oral interview after being successful in the written examination, upon rejection of the candidature of the respondent No. 5, the peti tioner ought to have been selected and appointed, Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 submits that the respondent No. 5 be ing a qualified diploma holder in Electronics and Communication Engineering, whi ch naturally included Radio & T.V. course as well, there was nothing wrong in ac cepting the said diploma to be in conformity with the requirement of the trade. As disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, although the res pondent No. 5 was selected and appointed as Instructor, Radio & T.V. he has resi gned from the post and thus the post is still lying vacant. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the respondent No. 5 did not have the requisite qua lification in the particular trade i.e. Radio & T.V., he was appointed at Tinsuk ia as Instructor in another trade i.e. Electronics Mechanics. If we go by the certificates of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, while t he petitioner is a diploma holder in the requisite trade i.e. Radio & T.V., the respondent No. 5 is a diploma holder in Electronic Communication Engineering. Ho wever, as stated in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, which has been quoted
Decision
above, the said diploma course is inclusive of Radio & T.V. Hoewver, it is not d iscernible as to wherefrom and on what basis the respondent No. 2 has made the s tatement in the said paragraph that (cid:28)Radio & T.V. is included in the trade of El ectronic and Telecommunication trade (cid:29). As per the advertisement, there was specific requirement of particular trade i.e . Radio & T.V. As per the minimum academic and technical qualifications laid dow n in the employment notice, the required educational qualification was HSLC or e quivalent and the required technical qualification was minimum 3 years diploma i n appropriate trade from an recognized institute or NCVT Certificate in appropri ate trade or equivalent qualification from recognized institute or National Appr enticeship Certificate in appropriate trade. It is in reference to the said term (cid:28)appropriate trade (cid:29), the petitioner has cont ended that he being diploma holder in the appropriate trade i.e. Radio & T.V. ou ght to have been selected as a lone candidate in the said trade instead of selec ting the ineligible candidate i.e. the respondent No. 5. Coupled with this, the assertion of the petitioner is that the post is also lying vacant upon resignati on tendered by the respondent No. 5. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires co nsideration of the respondents taking note of the aforesaid plea of the petition er. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to e xamine and consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the above discuss ion. Let a speaking order be passed as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, no t later than 31.7.2013.