The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No.174 of 2019 Sidhartha Kumar Garnaik … Petitioner Dr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others … Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Advocate for OSSC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 21.02.2025 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. Heard Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Odisha Staff Selection Commission. Affidavit filed in Court be kept in record. 3. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission, in short, “the Commission” under Annexure-12. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 by the Commission on 31.07.2013 for recruitment as against the post of Assistant Training Officer, he made an application as against the post of Fitter so reflected at
Legal Reasoning
Annexure-B to the advertisement. It is contended that as against 489 posts of Assistant Training Officer so advertised, 89 posts were meant for the posts of Fitter. Against those 89 posts of Fitter, 34 posts were reserved for the candidates with having NTC/NAC Trades with three years experience. 4.1. It is contended that not only the application submitted by the petitioner as against the post of Fitter with having qualification in NTC/NAC trade was entertained, but also he was allowed to take part in the main examination along with other eligible candidates. When his name was not reflected in the final list published by the Commission vide Notification dated 31.07.2014 under Annexure-7, the Page 2 of 14 matter was carried to the learned Tribunal by the petitioner in O.A. No.1362(C) of 2015. 4.2 . It is contended that the said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 07.05.2018 along with a batch of O.As., in the light of order passed by the self- same Tribunal in O.A. No.2387(C) of 2014 and batch under Annexure-8. It is further contended that O.A.
Decision
No.2387(C) of 2014 and batch were disposed of by the learned Tribunal, inter alia, with the following order: “7. In the result, the O.As. are allowed. The respondents are directed to publish the result of final selection list of these candidates taking into in the main consideration their performance written examination provided they have secured the cut-off marks and there is vacancy in the ategory to which the applicants belong. The respondents may insist for verification of original experience certificate before the appointment order if they feel it necessary and all these exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” issuing of 4.3. It is further contended that the aforesaid direction was issued by the learned Tribunal with a finding that a candidate, who does not claim age relaxation, is not required to submit the experience certificate in the D.A.F. and striking down the names of these applicants on the sole ground of non- furnishing of experience certificate along with D.A.F. seems to be arbitrary and discrimination towards the applicants. Page 3 of 14 4.4. It is further contended that since the petitioner in terms of the advertisement was having the required qualification, on the face of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.1362 (C) of 2015 read with the order passed in O.A. No.2387(C) of 2014 and batch, further confirmed by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2017 in W.P.(C) No,4585 of 2017, and batch under Annexure-9, claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in the order under Annexure-12. 4.5. It is also contended that the qualification so possessed by the petitioner as available under Annexure-1 Series, is the essential qualification meant for the post of Fitter so reflected in the communication issued by the Director of Technical Education and Training, Odisha, Cuttack vide Resolution dated 12.09.2012. Paragraph-3 of the said Resolution reads as under: on State Government, “3. The the the Ministry of Labour & recommendation of Employment, Government of India, have decided to recognize National Trade Certificate of one year Broad Based Basic Training, National Trade Certificate for Advanced Modules and Specialized module certificate either of National Apprenticeship Certificate or Specialized module certificate of industry & SCTE&VT, Odisha all taken together awarded to the successful trainees under the Multi- skill training pattern of the Craftsman Training Scheme as equivalent to the relevant conventional pattern of trades under the Craftsman Training Scheme to subordinate posts and services under the State Government, State/Central Sector PSUs, private sector industries and other sectors.” the purpose of recrjuitment for Page 4 of 14 4.6. It is contended that the stipulation contained in the Resolution dated 12.09.2012 under Annexure- 19, finds support in the decision reported in (2002) 2 SCC 167 (Rajesh Kumar Dwibedi vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another). Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraphs – 4, 8, 9 & 10 of the decision held as follows: “4. The appellant relies upon Circular issued by Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation, Government of India on 16 th December, 1983 giving equivalency between various disciplines under Restructured Pattern and Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme. The said circular that a candidate having basic course of clarifies Mechanical Trade of one year, Fitting General Module of six months and Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module of six months was treated to be equivalent to Fitter of two years training. Subsequently, the State Government vide communication dated 18-8-1988 issued directions for considering the eligibility of training obtained from MITI, Haldwani for services and posts under State Government. The same is reproduced hereunder: “From The Director Training and Employment Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow To The Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh Labour Department Secretariat, Lucknow. Letter No. /E-2/0102/Policy(General)/84-85 Dated: 18-8- 1988 Sub: Regarding issuance of directions for considering the trainees obtained training from Model Industrial Training Institute, Haldwani. Sir Page 5 of 14 it for this this training institute reference, is noteworthy Shri Q.L. Juneja, Principal/Deputy Director, Model Industrial Training Institute, Haldwani (Nainital) has requested that orders for considering the trainees who the from have obtained services/appointments under State Government. In this reference, he informed that directions for issuance of necessary orders in this regard have already been given to all the Ministries of Government of India and different departments vide Letter No. D.G.E.T.-5/7/83-T.C. dated 31st October, 1983 and that request has been made for issuance of above orders at the earliest to all the State Governments and Union Territories of the Country. 2. In that on recommendation of National Council of Vocational Training (NCVT), the Government of India has established the above Institute in year 1981 under re-structured training pattern of the Government has already been provided 11 acres of land. 3. Following two certificates are being issued by the Model Industrial Training Institute, Haldwani (Nainital): (1) National Training Certificate Basic Training. (2) Certificate of Proficiency awarding to the successful trainees under training pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme. 4. It is well-considered opinion of this directorate, that the above both certificates granted by above institute kindly be declared eligible for services and posts under State Government like Government of India, whereby, the candidates trained by above institute may be retired in the services under State Government.” training scheme, the restructured the Craftsmen for which, xxx xxx xxx 8. Rule 8 of the amended Rules has prescribed the following academic qualifications: “8. Academic Qualification – (1) A candidate for recruitment to the post of instructor other than the post of language instructor (Hindi/English) in the Service must possess the following qualifications: (1) Educational - (i) Must have passed Intermediate examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an Examination recognised by the Government as equivalent, thereto. (ii) Must have obtained a certificate in the respective trade from the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades. OR Must have obtained National Apprenticeship Certificate in the respective trade. OR” Page 6 of 14 9. We find that the stand of the State that appellant is not possessed of educational qualifications is not tenable. The eligibility condition is that a candidate must have obtained a certificate in respective trade from NCVT. It is not necessary that a qualification prescribed in the Rules has to be possessed in one certificate. The Circular of 4 for short, ‘the amended Rules’ the Government of India dated 16th December, 1983 prescribes the following conditions: Conventional Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme Trade Duration of training 6 Fitter 7 2 years Restructured Pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme NCO No. Duration of training 3 4 One year Total durati on of trainin g 5 2years 842.10 6 months 840.10 6 months Sl. No. 1 1. Identified trades group & Modules (s) for equivalency 2 Basic in (i) Course mechanical trades group. Fitting (ii) General Module (iii) Metrology & Engineering Inspection Module 10. It is on the basis of such Circular, the Director of Training and Employment of the State has issued Circulars on 18th August, 1988 and on 9th April, 1992 that such qualification will be deemed to be equivalent to the National Trade Certificate. Once the educational qualification has been treated to be equivalent by the State Government in the Circulars issued earlier, the stand of the State that appellant is not qualified has no legs to stand. The State itself has treated qualification of basic course in Mechanical Trade Fitter, General Module and Metrology and Engineering Inspection Module equivalent to conventional pattern of Craftsmen Training Scheme.” 4.7. It is contended that in view of the qualification required for the post of Fitter so reflected in Annexure-B coupled with the Resolution issued by the Directorate of Technical Education and Training, Odisha, Cuttack on 12.09.2012 under Annexure-19 and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Dwibedi (supra), the petitioner was an eligible candidate Page 7 of 14 to get the benefit of selection and appointment. But at the first instance, his candidature was rejected after allowing him to take part in the main examination on the ground that the petitioner does not have the required experience. 4.8. It is contended that in view of the nature of order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.2387 of 2014 under Annexure- 8 and the order passed in the case of the petitioner in O.A. No.1362 of 2015, the ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2018 under Annexure-12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Commission on the other hand made a submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by opposite party no.4. It is the main plank of the learned counsel appearing for the Commission that in view of the communication issued by the self-same Director, Technical Education and Training, Odisha, Cuttack-O.P No.3, on 17.09.2018 under Annexure-B/4, petitioner does not have the required qualification as in the application made by him, he applied for the post at Sl. No.79 for which the prescribed qualification is Mechanical/Electrical Diploma of two years Page 8 of 14 experience. Petitioner’s candidature on the face of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, was rejected vide the impugned order accordingly. 5.1. It is contended that for the purpose of implementation of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, which has been confirmed by this Court, while following the clarification issued by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure- B/4, since it is found that the petitioner does not have the required qualification as against the post at Sl. No.79, his claim was rejected vide the impugned order. It is accordingly, contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the action of the Commission in rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide the impugned order on the face of the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party nos.1, 2 & 3. It is contended that petitioner since does not have the required qualification as well as experience and there was no vacancy available after disposal of the matter by the learned Tribunal, the Commission basing on the clarification issued under Annexure-B/4, considered the application and found the petitioner ineligible, as he does not have the required qualification for the post in question. It is also Page 9 of 14 contended that in the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, there was no posts meant for ATO (Production and Manufacturing Trade) under ITI. It is contended that since petitioner made the application as against the post at Sl.79, i.e., Vocational Instructor (POT) and required qualification is Mechanical/Electrical Diploma of two years, petitioner’s application has been rightly rejected. 7. To the stand taken by opposite party no.4 as well as opposite party nos.1 to 3 learned Counsel for the petitioner taking into account the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit made further submission. It is contended that petitioner in terms of Annexure-2 made his application as against the post of Fitter and as against 89 posts of Fitters, 34 vacancies were meant for candidates having NTC/NAC Trades. Therefore, the ground on which claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commission that petitioner does not have the required qualification is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to the set aside by this Court. 7.1. It is contended that taking into account the stipulation contained in Annexure-19 and the decision in the case of Rajesh Kumar Dwibedi as cited supra, petitioner as will be found from the testimonials enclosed vide Annexure-1 Series, does have the required NTC/NAC Trade. Page 10 of 14 7.2 It is also contended that petitioner never made his application as against the post mentioned at Sl. No.79, i.e., post of ATO with Production and Manufacturing Trade. In his application so submitted vide Annexure-3, petitioner indicated post Code No.79 as in the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, the post code for the post of Assistant Training Officer was indicated as ATRO/79. 7.3. It is also contended that taking into account the fact that petitioner has got NTC/NAC Trade, he applied for the post of Fitter, so indicated at Sl. No.1 of Annexure-B to the advertisement. 7.4 It is also contended that while calling the petitioner for counseling-cum-certificate verification vide letter dated 20.12.2013 under Annexure-3 Series, petitioner was directed to bring original documents in support of his qualification which includes certificate of NTC/NAC Trade. Therefore, it is to be held that petitioner never made his application as against the post of ATO (Production and Manufacturing Trade). Petitioner’s candidature is in respect of the post of ATO (Fitter) with NTC/NAC Trade. It is accordingly contended that the commission without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s claim as against the post of ATO (Fitter) with NTC/NAC Trade, rejected his claim taking his application as made against the post of ATO (Production Page 11 of 14 and Manufacturing Trade). Not only that petitioner’s claim was earlier rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not have the required experience which was rejected by the Tribunal while disposing his application in the light of the order passed under Annexure-8. But by taking a different stand, which is perse illegal, petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-2, petitioner made the application as against the post of Assistant Training Officer. In the advertisement so issued the post code as against the post of Assistant Training Officer is indicated as ATRO/79. Out of total advertised 489 posts of contractual ATOs, 89 posts were reserved for the post of Fitter as found from Annexure-A to the advertisement. As against those 89 posts of Fitter, 34 posts of Fitter were required to be filled up from amongst the candidates having NTC/NAC Trades as found from Annexure-B to the advertisement. 8.1 As found from the testimonials enclosed by the petitioner vide Annexure-1 Series and the requirement indicated in letter dated 20.12.2013 under Annexure-3 Series coupled with the Resolution issued by the Director, Technical Education and Page 12 of 14 Training, Odisha, Cuttack on 12.09.2012 and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited (supra), this Court is of the considered view that petitioner does have the required qualification as against the post of ATO (Fitter) with NTC/NAC Trade. However, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not have the required qualification for the post of ATO (Production and Manufacturing Trade) and that too basing on a communication issued by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-B/4. 8.2 It is the view of this Court that petitioner never made his application as against the post of ATO (Production and Manufacturing Trade). The post code 79 indicated on the application made by the petitioner is the code reflected for the post of ATO in the 1st Page of the advertisement. The Commission as per the considered view of this Court has wrongly considered the application being made for the post of ATO (Production and Manufacturing Trade). Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 20.11.2018 so passed by opposite party no.4 under Annexure-12. While quashing the said order and by holding that petitioner does have the required qualification, as against the post of ATO (Fitter) with NTC/NAC Trade, direct opposite party no.4 to comply with the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. Page 13 of 14 No.1362(C) of 2015 under Annexure-17 Series read with the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-8 and pass an appropriate order as directed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the petitioner. The writ petitioner is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge amit Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH CORT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2025 18:17:39 Page 14 of 14