Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE P.B. SAWANT AND N. P. SINGH, JJ.
SUBHASH, s/o SHRIRAM DHONDE
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.
Civil Appeal No. 4425 of 1994{Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2747 of 1994}
Decided on 13-5-1994
Acquisition of Working Experience - Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991 - The rules do not differentiate between acquisition of working experience prior to or after the acquisition of basic qualification. Circular cannot replace the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application based on the ground that the appellant had acquired working experience prior to the acquisition of the basic qualifications, relying on a circular issued by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect as the rules did not differentiate between acquisition of working experience before or after the acquisition of basic qualification. The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and directed the respondent to consider the appellant for appointment.
Issues: The issue was whether the appellant's working experience prior to the acquisition of basic qualifications should be considered for appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was that the circular issued by the Government could not replace the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, and the rules did not differentiate between acquisition of working experience before or after the acquisition of basic qualification.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Tribunal was set aside, with the direction for the respondent to consider the appellant for appointment.
ORDER
1. Leave granted. Heard parties.
2. The Tribunal has dismissed the appellants application only on the ground that the appellant had acquired the working experience of one year prior to acquisition of the basic qualifications which in this case is diploma in Automobile Engineering. For this purpose, the Tribunal relied upon the circular issued by the Government. The rules, namely, the Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules, 1991 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution show that a mere possession of the working experience of at least one year in a reputed Automobile Workshop as mentioned under Rule 3(e) is enough. The rule does not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification. What is further, the record shows that even after the acquisition of the basic qualification as mentioned in Rule 3(c), the appellant has acquired the additional experience of one year in a reputed Automobile Workshop as required even by the said circular. The Tribunal has committed an error in relying upon the circular which cannot replace the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. We are; therefore, o the view that the Tribunals decision is incorrect Since the appellant satisfies the qualifications required by the rules, the decision of the Tribunal has to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the impugned decision of the Tribunal and direct the respondent to consider the appellant for appointment, if otherwise he satisfies the requisite qualifications including the marks obtained in the written test and the interview already held. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
For Citation: 1995 Supp(3) SCC 332
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
