Birendra Kumar Sahu … v. 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Ranchi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 2. General Manager
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 265 of 2019 --- Birendra Kumar Sahu … … Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Ranchi through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director 2. General Manager (HR), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Ranchi 3. Deputy General Manager (HR), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Ranchi 4. Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Respondents Nigam Limited, Ranchi …. … CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Order No. 07 Dated: 13.02.2024 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the final scorecard of the petitioner having roll no. 554103374 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) as he has not been granted marks for experience pursuant to Employment Notification No.- 03/2016 issued by the respondent- Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (JUVNL). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to forthwith release new scorecard to the petitioner on the basis of marks obtained by him in Pen and Paper (PnP) test as well as by granting marks for his technical experience in terms with the aforesaid employment notification and thereafter to appoint him with effect from the date of declaration of result. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner initially joined the respondent- JUVNL in the year 2011 as ‘Switch Board Operator (SBO) (Manday)’ and was working on the same post at Senha Sub-Station under Electric Supply Sub- 2 Division, Lohardaga till 2016. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent-JUVNL issued Employment Notification No. 03/2016 which stipulated that the candidates having prescribed qualification with respect to the posts mentioned at serial no. (7) to (10) of the said employment notification and who had experience of directly working with any Government Undertaking GenCo/TrasCo/ DisCom between 01.01.2007 and 01.12.2016, would be awarded additional marks as preference weightage for their post qualification working experience on the post advertised by providing weightage of 1.5 marks for each 6 months period of service subject to a maximum of 15 marks (i.e. for those having up to and above 60 months service experience with the organization). 4. It is also submitted that pursuant to the said employment notification, the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Lohardaga, vide letter no. 1024 dated 16.06.2016, issued experience certificate to the petitioner showing him to be working as ‘Helper-cum-S.B.O. (Manday)’ under Electrical Supply Sub-Division, Lohardaga at 33/11 KV Sub-Station, Senha on daily wages from 01.10.2011 till 16.06.2016. The proforma experience certificate of the petitioner for relaxation in maximum age and award of weightage marks was duly completed and attested by the then Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Lohardaga wherein he was shown to be working in the organisation from October, 2011. The petitioner was also awarded the Provisional 3 National Trade Certificate issued by the Secretary, State Council for Vocational Training, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that having possessed all requisite qualification and experience as contained in the said employment notification, the petitioner applied for the post of Switch Board Operator (SBO) Gr.-II, Assistant Operator and Jr. Line Man on preference basis. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has only been awarded three marks instead of maximum 15 marks as he had worked at Senha Sub-Station under the office of the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Supply Sub-Division, Lohardaga for the period from October, 2011 to December, 2016. 6.
Legal Reasoning
On the contrary, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, refers to supplementary counter affidavit dated 08.02.2024 filed on behalf of the respondents and submits that pursuant to Employment Notification No.03/2016, the petitioner applied for the technical posts (SBO Gr.-II, Assistant Operator & Jr. Line Man). As per the terms of the said employment notification, the petitioner submitted experience certificate issued from the concerned Electrical Executive Engineer in the proforma enclosed as Annexure-I of the said notification with his application form indicating the days of his work and corresponding wages. While making scrutiny of the said experience certificate, the scrutiny committee observed that the petitioner was getting wages of unskilled worker up to November 2015 and was paid wages of semi-skilled worker from December, 2015 to November, 2016. The 4 period from December, 2015 to November, 2016 was considered acceptable for the purpose of post qualification working experience as per the advertisement and accordingly, he was awarded three marks for experience of 12 months i.e., 1.5 marks for each six months. 7. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner’s claim that he has not been granted experience preference marks is false. The petitioner scored 40.80 marks in the Pen and Paper (PnP) test held for the above posts and was awarded 03 marks as experience weightage, hence his total score was 43.80 marks. Since, the last selected candidate in the petitioner’s category (EBC-I) scored more than him, he was not selected. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner was working as Helper-Cum-SBO (Manday) at 33/11KV Sub Station, Senha under Electric Supply Sub-Division, Lohardaga on daily wages from 01.10.2011 but was getting unskilled wages upto November 2015. Moreover, the petitioner passed ITI (the requisite qualification for the concerned posts) in July, 2014. Therefore, the period between August, 2014 to July, 2015 has been considered as mandatory experience of at least 1 year in job Post Qualification as mentioned in the advertisement. 9. It is further submitted that the cut-off marks of various posts pursuant to Employment Notification No. 03/2016 are as follows: 5 Post Assistant Operator Switch Operator, Gr.-II Junior Line Man Board UR EBC-I 68.80 65.40 BC-II 63.20 SC 58.20 ST 57.40 59.00 56.80 55.80 46.20 45.60 54.40 53.60 51.40 44.80 41.60 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the ‘Provisional National Trade Certificate’ issued to the petitioner by the Secretary, State Council for Vocational Training, Jharkhand, Ranchi, it appears that he passed the prescribed trade test in the trade of “Electrician” held in the month of July, 2014. As per the experience preference mentioned in the Employment Notification No. 03/2016, the candidates having prescribed qualification mentioned for the posts at serial no. (7) to (10) and experience of directly working with any Government Undertaking GenCo/TransCo/DisCom between 01.01.2007 & 01.12.2016, were to be awarded additional marks as preference weightage for their post qualification working experience on the advertised post by providing weightage of 1.5 marks for each 6 months period of service subject to a maximum of 15 marks (i.e. for those having upto and above 60 months service experience with the organisation). 11. As per the stand of the respondents, the petitioner has been awarded three marks i.e. for one year as he obtained the qualification of “Electrician” in the examination conducted by the State Council for Vocational Training, Jharkhand, Ranchi in the month of July, 2014.Thus, this Court is of the view that the respondents have not committed any infirmity in awarding 03 marks to the petitioner as preference weightage. 6 12. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner should have been awarded maximum 15 marks (for which he was not entitled as discussed hereinabove), he would have got 55.80 marks (40.80 marks actually awarded to the petitioner + 15 marks) whereas the last selected candidate for the post of SBO, Gr.-II under EBC-I category, has got 56.80 marks i.e., higher than him. 13. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for consideration of his prayer. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)