Ch. Naresh v. The State of Telangana

nstitution of lndia praying that in the therewith, the High Court maY be ore in the nature Writ of Mandamus, 2 d Respondent, is NOT taking the ;;,r r f,'"rr4tr. - Petitioners candidature into consideration for the appointment for the posts of the Direct Recruitment of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) police Constable (AR), as per the vide Notification No. RC.No.B8/Rect./Admin -1l2O1B Dated. 31-5-20'1 8 in spite of having qualified and listed in the Provisional Selection List and attended for medical test conducted by 2nd Respondent and which result in grave injustice as the petitioner herein is going to lose the opportunity of getting selected after successful completion of all the phases of the recruitment such as preliminary Written Test (PWT), Physical Measurement Test (pMT), physical Efficiency Test (PET) and a Final Written Examination (FWE) for the above mentioned posts as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16, 19 (g) and 21 ot the constitution of lndia and consequenfly Direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioners candidature by accepting his lndustrial rraining lnstitute (lrl) qualification as prescribed qualification and allow the petitioner herein for further selection process like medical and departmental inquiry etc, in the interest of justice. !.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioners candidature by accepting his lndustrial rraining lnstitute (lrl) qualification as prescribed qualification and allow the petitioner herein for further selection process like medical and departmental inquiry etc, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAMESH CHILLA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRt C.RAJASEKHAR REDDy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 : SRt cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEpUTy SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NA ESH BHEEMAPANA WRIT PETITION No. 25 27 0F 2019 ORDER: Thc case of petiti r is that pursuant to Notifical-ion dated 3 1-05-2O 18 of th 2"d Respondent for Direct RecruiLment of Stipendiary Cadet Tr ee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil), SCT PC (AR), SCr PC (SAR C L), SCT PC (TSSP), Frremen and Warders in Police and appeared / pal ticipatcd and succe other Dcpartments, he sfully completed / qualitied Stage-A: Preliminary Written Tes (PWT), Stage-B: PhYsical Measulemenl Test (PMT), Stage-C hysical Effrciency Test (PET) and Stage-D: Final Written Exami tion (FWE) also successfullY completed and qualified and rtihcate verilication also completed successfully. Petitior'e claims to have comPleted SSC and 2 year InCustrial ining Institute (lTI) 1n DraulJhtsman (Civil) which is e uivalerLt to 1O+2. In the Provisional Seiection List, his n e appeared in SCT Pohce Constable (AR) in Police De ent in Hyderabad Unit as Serial No. 897; he u.as invited for medical test and . certificate verification, however, after a daY r two, he got a phone call that he did not submil respondent offi from the 2'd verification form with certihcales d they asked him to come to their ofhce. On inquiry, theY told P titioner that his veriltcation t I 2 I ':: form w.as not uploaded because he did not possess the required qualification. I

2. The 2nd Respondent stated in the counter that pursuant to the subject norification, alt the qualified candidatcs were called upon for certificate verilication from 14_06_2019 lo 22-06-2079; Petitior-rer submitted ITI Certificate of Draughtsman (Civil) of (iovernmcnt ITI, Old City, Hyderabad. In Lhe notification at Para 7 (D), it was clearly rnenrlioned that candidate must hold, as on 1s' July, 2O1g, a pass Certificate;n Intermediate or rts equivalent examinatir.,n recognisecl by the State Government. In the case of a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as on lsr Ju1y, 20lg, he / she must have passed SSC or its equ.ivalent examjnation recognised b1. the State Govcrnment ancl should have studied Intermediate and appeared jbr Intcrmediate Exrueination jn both the years and ITI is not equivalent to In termediate and there are no State Government instructions in t.his regard. FIe categorically stated that because of the mistake in verification by the Staff of the Commissioner of police, Hyclerabad. Petitioner was rlade eligible and based on the marks secured by him, he was provisionaliy selected to the post of SCTpC AR in Hvderabad Ci[r subject for verification of antececlents / certihcates :rnd Medical Fitness. During the process of t J v<: rification, iL came to the noLice of ornmissioner of Policc, who sent a report in this regard and e has been addressed on 07 .ll .2019 ro deal wi1-h the co cerned for laPses in the Certificate verihcation. It is stated that, in the Notification at Para 8 (i), it has been clearly mentior-red that " e claim of the Candidates u,ith regard to rhe Age, Da oI Birth, Educational Qualifications, Communttl' etc., are accepted only ProvisionallY on the information furnished by the in t heir Application Form and Certificates Produced, su ect to verilication and satisfzrction of the TSLPRB, at n appropriate time. Mere admission to anY Exam /Test or nclusion of the name of a Candidate in a Merit List. will not onfer on the candidate anY right for selection. The candidatr-tr is thcrefore, Provisional at al1 stages and TSLPRB reserve th right to reject his / her candiclaturt: at any stage of the sele tion without anY notice". At para ti(1), it is mentioned that 'C ndidates are requested to check their eligibility with referen e to the laid down criterla carefully and lill in all the relev nt columns in the Online Application Form". In view of facts and circumstances stated above, there are no groun s to consider the case of Petitioner for the relief prayed for by him in the Writ Petition n I I 1 ;!

3. On behalf of Respondents 3 and 4, the Regional Director, Regional Directorate of Skill Devclopmelt & Entrepreneurship, Directorate General of Trainin{. Ministn, of Skill Devclopment & Entrepreneursh ip, statecl th;rt. Memorandurn ol Understanding had been signed beLrveen Respondent No. 4 (DGT) and Respondent No. 5 (NIOS) not u,ith TOSS on 14th July 2O 16 for five years from comr.nt.ncing datc of MoU and the aim and objer:tive u,hich is reievant ro this casc is " 1.4 cnable National Council for Vocational Trzrining (NCVT) certiiied, I'I'i lcrtrners Lo carn Secc,ndary/ Senior- Secr>ndaiy qualifi,:ation s''. NIOS will accept credit transfer o[ Lhrcc core subjects successfullv completed by a trainee in any reglrlar course uncler Craftsmen Training Scherne (C1'S) ol NCVT pursur:d in an ITI ancl lvill offer tu.o colrrses to o()mpl(:te the requirr:men1 lor Secor-rdary,/Senior Sec:onclar1., aftcr successlul learner:s shorving the marks of these two NIOS subjects and three ITI subjects. lt is stated, MSDtr uide Gazette notilication dated

05.12.2018. NCVT and National Skitl Development Agency (NSDA) has been subsumed as National Council lirr Vocatjonal Education and Training (NCVtrT) which is the neu. regulatory authority. Petitioner did not produce any document (certificate/ marks sheet) rssued by NIOS and hc produced I ) ., Intermediate Pass Certificate-c -Memorandum of Marks issued by Telangana OPen School ciety (TOSS) which is not relevant in the context of ResPon ents 3 and 4 or for that matler, ResPondent No.5.

4. The 5h resPondent - egional Director, National Institute of Open Sclrooling at Regi Centre, Hyderabad also fiied the counter in the similar lin to that of ResPondents 3 and 4.

5. The 6th responclent filed the counter stating that the trainee admitted into anY of Gover ment or Private Industriai Trainlng lnstitute (ITI) will undergo Vocational Training, in this case Draughtsman Civil Trade for 2 Years and he / she will appear for A1l India Trade Test (AITT) conducted bY the Directorate General of Trair-ring (DG , Government of Indla and would be awarded National Cou Certihcate. This certihcate is cil for Vocational Training rent from lO + 2 Scheme u'hich is given bY SSC Board d Board of Intermediate Education. It is stated that tLre Ministry of Human Resources decision t]nat 2 Year trade IT ontention of Petitioner that and DeveloPment (MHRD) IS equivalent status to Intermediate is not true as for the epartment is concerned.

6. Heard Sri Ramesh hilla, Iearned counsel for petitioner, Sri R. Sridhar, learned tanding Counsel for Central ./ t 6 Gorrernment and Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy, Iearned counsel for the 2"d respondent

7. The main grievance of petitioner is that he completed SSC and tivo-year industrial Trarlning Instttute (ITI) in Draughtsman (Civil) u.hich is equivalent to T 0+2. Whereas. respondents, in unison, state that the certilicate produced by petitioner is clifferent from 10+2 Scheme u,hich u,ould be given b1. SSC Board and Board of Intermeciiate Educatio;r. Respondents 3 to 5 also stated that Mcrnorandum cf Understalding was signed berween Respondent No..1 (DGT) and Respondent No. 5 (NIOS) not with TOSS on l4.OZ.2016 fcrr five years commencing from the date of MoU and the pr-incipal aim and objective is to enable National Council frrr Vocational Tr:rining (NC\rT) certified ITI learners ro earn Secontlary/ Senior Secondary qualihcatigns; NIOS will acce,frt cri:d.t transfer cf three core subjects successfully completed bv a trainee in any regular course under Craftsmen Training Scleme of NCVT pursued in ITI and rvould offer two courses to complete Lhe requirement for Secondary ,rsenior Secondary after. successful learners shorving the marks of these two NIOS subjccts and three ITI sub.lects. It is stated by them that petitioner did not produce any such cerlificate / marks sheet issued bv NIOS and w 7 that he produced Interrnedia Pass Certificate-cum- Memorandum of marks issued Telangana Open School Society (TOSS) which is not re evant in the context of Respondents 3 to 5. 8 In view of the categor respondents, this Court is not i cal submissions made bY a position to reject the contention of respondents that peti ioner did not produce the certificate of requisite qualificatio 1'he Writ Pctition is the refore, liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is ccordingly, dismissed. No 9 costs.

10. Consequently, Misce l eous Applications, i[ any shall stand closed. I/TRUE CO Yil SD/'K.AMMAJI 1 DEPUTYREGISTRAR / v SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 5 F C Two Cs to G P oR HoME H rg Ch Hyd etabad o rl t U one CC to SR GAD RAVEEN K oF N D A Ad vocate oPUc one cC to S R RAM ESH cH LA A o ne CC to S R c RAJ AS EKHAR R . Two CD CoPies L P U ) ( M d ED SA LS Yt- for the State of Telangana at R, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL 9"X.f"?Y8\o'u"r r HE S14 r€i o ,) 12 tlJB 2t6 $ ( 2 C] \\:1)t .*, . -., '- =: ---:; \i /i/ .a HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 ORDER WP.No.25027 of 2019 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 8*8e ffii: Yrr-